In New Tests for Fetal Defects, Agonizing Choices

[Walt Starr]

In New Tests for Fetal Defects, Agonizing Choices
By AMY HARMON

Published: June 20, 2004


Lying in the darkened doctor's office, Kate Hoffman stared at the image of the 11-week-old fetus inside her on the ultrasound screen, a tiny ghost with a big head. It would have been so sweet, Ms. Hoffman said, if something had not been so clearly wrong.

Ms. Hoffman's first three children had been healthy, and she was sure this one would be, too. She was not planning to have the amniocentesis procedure often used to test for fetal health problems, preferring to avoid even the slightest risk that the insertion of a needle into her uterus would cause her to miscarry

<snip>

Dr. Jonathan Lanzkowsky, an obstetrician affiliated with Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan, described one woman who had been born with an extra finger, which was surgically removed when she was a child. Her children have a 50-50 chance of inheriting the condition, but she is determined not to let that happen. Detecting the extra digit through early ultrasounds, she has terminated two pregnancies so far, despite doctors' efforts to persuade her to do otherwise, Dr. Lanzkowsky said.

Other doctors said that they had seen couples terminate pregnancies for poor vision, whose effect they had witnessed on a family member, or a cleft palate, which they worried would affect the quality of their child's life.

<snip>

Read the complete article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/20/health/20PREN.html?pagewanted=all&position=

[Walt Starr]

1. Until I read this article, I was 100% pro-choice

now I'm rethinking my position.

[dsc]

2. Not that it will ever happen

but more than a few pro choicers here owe me an apology for calling me nuts and worse for suggesting women would abort gay babies. It is hard to read this article and then say it couldn't ever happen.

[arcos]

3. I totally agree with you...

I'm 100% prochoice, but if a 'gay gene' was ever found, I would probably have to rethink it... sadly, finding that gene in their future kids would be a major 'concern' for a lot of parents.

[KittyWampus]

9. Is The Issue Abortion Or Testing Fetuses?

Oops! Maybe there's a third possible issue- Western Civilizations increasing need to CONTROL nature beyond a healthy level.

The Medical Industry is happy catering to our desire for a Master Race.

[Nevernose]

22. Would not having a child w/ Down's Syndrome

...qualify as "controling nature," or would that be a reasonable action to take?

[outinforce]

40. I Dunno

You might want to ask someone who has Downs Syndrome.

[MUSTANG_2004]

118. Part of the problem with testing for Down's syndrome

We chose not to test for any genetic defects because the tests themselves are dangerous:

1) Amniocentesis (done at about 18 weeks) can damage a perfectly healthy fetus and actually results in the death of the fetus about 0.5% of the time.

2) CVS can be done earlier (12 weeks), but is even more dangerous, resulting in the death of the fetus about 1-2% of the time.

Considering that the chance of serious birth defects is about 3%, it's clear that testing for birth defects is a very risky numbers game.

Not to mention the timing of the tests - Amnio is done at about 18 weeks. Aborting a few weeks after conception is very different than aborting a baby that is at 18 weeks.

[Dulcinea]

130. Amniocentesis

Amniocentesis is an elective procedure done at 16 weeks, or it can be done even earlier if a problem is suspected. I had it twice (at 16 weeks) & have 2 beautiful, healthy daughters.

The risks, to me, are overblown. What would be worst case scanario for YOU, having a child with a birth defect or the slight risk of miscarriage from the procedure? That's purely a matter of personal choice. I chose amnio because I wanted to know everything was OK, plus a friend of our family has a Down's syndrome child, & I've seen how hard it is on their family. I know I could never handle that. More power to you if you could handle a special needs child--but I know I couldn't.

[outinforce]

144. My Hope

I am happy that you have two beautiful, healthy daughters. Beautiful and healthy children are such a joy.

You mention, though, that you know that you could never handle a special needs child.

I know other folks who felt that same way at one point in their lives, but you know what? When one of their children became severely disabled as a result of an accident, those parent found what they needed to handle a special needs child.

I hope that you never confront the need to handle a special needs child, but I als hope that if that situation should ever present itself to you, you would discover that you can, indeed, handle a special needs child.

[sangh0]

148. Where's the question?

It seems like you wanted to make a statement, and not ask a question.

I hope that that someday, the anti-abotionists stop foisting their unsolicited "help" on people.

on edit: I just noticed that outinforce edited his post and changed the subject line

[NewYorkerfromMass]

143. My 43 y.o. wife and I thought it prudent to test

and we would have aborted had our daughter been Downs. She was not.

[shanti]

30. cloning

is just as bad, imo. it's another way they can play god. the implications are frightening :scared:

[Timefortruth]

43. I don't get it.

Your moral outrage would only kick in if women could abort gay children, not six fingered children, or healthy boys? I'm pro choice, but to me if a woman is allowed to abort a healthy child because timing is bad, then a choice to abort a child that isn't what she had in mind is no less morally offensive.

The irony of the article too me is these people think they are now going to have perfect children, since the babies are free of detectable genetic imperfections. The jokes on them.

[Cheswick2.0]

89. Most people who are anti gay are also anti abortion

so they are most likely going to have that baby and spend a life time making it hate itself. Does that sound like a better solution to you?

[outinforce]

91. And There Are Some Who Are Pro-Abortion

who hate gay people so much that they see nothing wrong in saying that it's OK to abort a fetus simply because it is gay.

[dsc]

97. apparently you didn't read the article

There were at least two and I think three examples of anti abortion people advising their own kin to abort.

[Cheswick2.0]

132. So, they are designated at "most anti gay people" to you?

?

Please tell me why you want anti gay people raising gay children and why you think a woman's prejudice should cause her to lose her civil right to control her own reproductive life.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

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

[rinsd]

84. That's what frightens me.....

I have a few aquaintances whose children died horribly at 1 years old from systic fibrosis. They both carried the gene and eventually both decided to have themselves sterilized. There is a reason I can see for early detection.

What I fear is in our society(and others), that doomed(I just can;t think of another word to desribe this and apologize for any offense taken) and undesirible will intertwine. Whether its girls in societies that prefer boys, or as you stated gay children, its much harder to justify. I don't think there will be a designer baby phenomenon but ,my god, over an extra finger?

Edit: spelling

[Cheswick2.0]

87. the issue is not whether they would abort gay fetus or not

The issue is whether you have a right to force them to carry a pregnancy to birth because the fetus is gay. A woman's right to chose should not be subject to your opinion that every gay fetus is precious.

Why would you want women who hate gay people enough to abort a gay fetus, to have a gay child? Would you force her to then give that child up so that she wouldn't emotionally abuse it by trying to force the child to be straight? Wouldn't that make her an incubator for real?

Why is it any of your business anyway?

[outinforce]

90. Why Do You Hate

gay people so much that you insist that it is OK for a fetus to be aborted simply because it might be gay?

[sangh0]

92. Why do you think rinsd hates gay people?

rinsd didn't limit the right to abort to those whose fetus is thought to be gay. The same rules apply to a heterosexual fetus, if there is such a thing

[outinforce]

94. What???

Displaying your usual abilities to READ, you ask me, "Why do you think rinsd hates gay people...rinsd didn't limit the right to abort to those whose fetus is thought to be gay. The same rules apply to a heterosexual fetus, if there is such a thing"

I did not address my comments to rinsd.

My comment was in response to post #87.

It was by cheswick.

[sangh0]

95. Why do you think cheswick hates gay people?

"cheswick didn't limit the right to abort to those whose fetus is thought to be gay. The same rules apply to a heterosexual fetus, if there is such a thing"

Maybe this time you'll explain yourself

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

Why do you think Cheswick hates gay people?

What you said was:

Why Do You Hate gay people so much that you insist that it is OK for a fetus to be aborted simply because it might be gay?

[sangh0]

Why do you think Cheswick hates gay people?

What you said was:

Why Do You Hate gay people so much that you insist that it is OK for a fetus to be aborted simply because it might be gay?

[sangh0]

125. You asked Cheswick why she hates gay people.

Why do you think Cheswick hates gay people?

[outinforce]

134. Why

Why do you ask?

[sangh0]

142. Why do you think Cheswick hates gay people?

A question is NOT an answer to a question

[outinforce]

155. Why?

Why Do you Ask?

Help me out here -- I think it is very clear why I think cheswick hates gay people.

Why can't you see it? It's obvious.

[sangh0]

172. Why do you think Cheswick hates gay people?

A question is NOT an answer

[Name removed]

182. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

250. No, it's not at all obvious.

[outinforce]

255. Too Bad.

It's quite obvious to me.

I guess if someone is unable to see why, it must be because s/he has never experienced the hatred that comes from being gay.

It's a gay thing, so I guess it isn't obvious to you, the way it is to me.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

261. OK, the reasons for your own prejudices and biases are obvious to you.

Congratulations. :eyes:

[Name removed]

265. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

268. Your post sickens me.

Those who harbor hatred of gay folks - and who therefore are unable to understand why I think it obvious that cheswick hates gay people -- should, I think, try for selef-awareness themselves.


Anyone who dares question you -- 'hates gay folks' ??



No, that isn't true. You have no monopoly on righteousness. Your posts appear to me to be narrow minded and hate filled, and questioning where you arrived at your misconceptions doesn't turn me into a homophobe.

[outinforce]

269. You Could Try Maalox

Or Pepto Bismol.

Both are pretty good products.

Either of them work pretty well for me when I see posts like this directed at me:

"OK, the reasons for your own prejudices and biases are obvious to you."

I don't really react too well to people who accuse me of having prejudices and biases but who are blind to their own.

Sorry.

That's just the way I am.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

271. Maalox won't wash away your hate-filled rhetoric.

I asked you to explain why you accused another DUer of being a homophobe, and you responded by calling me a homophobe.

:puke:

[outinforce]

272. It's Also Not Particularly Effective

at curing this sort of rhetoric:

"OK, the reasons for your own prejudices and biases are obvious to you."

Or this:

"Your post sickens me.... You have no monopoly on righteousness. Your posts appear to me to be narrow minded and hate filled,"

I did not suggest Maalox or Pepto Bismol as an antidote to any sort of hatred -- yours or mine.

You said that you werre sickened by a post of mine.

You said that I was "narrow-minded" and "hateful" and you implied strongly that I was self-righteous.

As I said before, self-awarenss is something I strive for.

I think I understand at least part of what you are saying -- and that is that it is difficult for people who are hate-filled to recognized that hatred within themselves.

I have a suggestion for us -- why don't I go home tonight and examine my own soul and person for any hatred -- and why don't you do the same?

Deal?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

274. You accused another DUer of being a homophobe

and when you are asked why, you label anyone questioning you as a homophobe.


Yes, that is narrow-minded, hateful rhetoric.

[outinforce]

277. You're Right, You Know?

I did accuse you of harboring a hatred for gay folks. That was uncalled for on my part, since I do not know you at all, and since you have never really expressed any hatred (as far as IO can tell, anyway) towards gay people.

I do apologize for making such a statement about you. As I said, it was not called for at all.

What I guess I should have said is that it is very difficult for me to understand why it is not obvious that cheswick, through the statements she has made here, does not hate gay people. I have known that I was "different" since I was about 5 years old -- 48 years ago. And I have also known the hatred -- and the way that hatred expresses itself -- that comes from those who hate gay people.

So you'll excuse me, I hope, for not understanding why it is not perfectly obvious to anyone that cheswick has expressed statements here that reflect a large antipathy towards people like me.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

280. I accept and commend you for your apology

which I did not expect, and was not required of you. As someone who has publicly apologized on DU, I know it is not necessarily easy to do, even when clearly in the wrong.


In that spirit, I think you might consider re-examining the original exchange that caused myself and sangh0 to challenge you:


Cheswick post 87

. the issue is not whether they would abort gay fetus or not


The issue is whether you have a right to force them to carry a pregnancy to birth because the fetus is gay. A woman's right to chose should not be subject to your opinion that every gay fetus is precious.

Why would you want women who hate gay people enough to abort a gay fetus, to have a gay child? Would you force her to then give that child up so that she wouldn't emotionally abuse it by trying to force the child to be straight? Wouldn't that make her an incubator for real?

Why is it any of your business anyway?

outinforce Response to Reply #87:

90. Why Do You Hate

gay people so much that you insist that it is OK for a fetus to be aborted simply because it might be gay?

No, it is not obvious to me why you accused Cheswick of this. I don't see anything in Cheswick's post to warrant it. As a third party observer, what I see is Cheswick asking some rhetorical questions that highlight an aspect of this issue, and you choosing to ignore those questions and responding with an ad hominem. I personally think the original discussion Cheswick was trying to provoke would have been more interesting than what ensued. Since this is a discussion board, it is appropriate for ask you what you see in the post that warrants this accusation.


What would be the most fruitful discussion, imho, is if you were to examine the rhetorical questions originally raised.

[outinforce]

283. In Response

A large part of the reason I am most reluctant to examine the rhetorical questions raised by cheswick has to do with history.

cheswick and I have been in discussions before. I don't think that I can, without having this post deleted, go into all of the details.

But let's just say that the discussions were not only non-productive -- they were hurtful.

I notice now that one of the posts of person other than cheswick or me has been deleted. That's a pity, because that poster did what I consider to be an admirable job of explaining why some of cheswick's statements are hateful to gay people.

Without knowing why that post was deleted, I am reluctant to recap its contents.

My basic objection to what cheswick has said is that to me it is hateful to suggest that it would be acceptable for a homophobic couple who discovered that a fetus had a "gay gene" to abort that fetus. I just can't imagine anyone saying something like that without them understanding how hateful it is.

My own parents, if given the choice, probably would have aborted me if they had known, before I was born, that would turn out gay. It was different when they came to know that I was gay. But I think most people, at least now, would not want to have a gay child. Perhaps that sentiment willo change over time.

But I really don't think it will change as long as people harbor the notion -- the hateful notion, in my estimation -- that it is acceptable to abort children simply because they might turn out gay.

[sangh0]

285. The posts were deleted because they were hateful

so it's no surprise to me that you found them "admirable"

My basic objection to what cheswick has said is that to me it is hateful to suggest that it would be acceptable for a homophobic couple who discovered that a fetus had a "gay gene" to abort that fetus. I just can't imagine anyone saying something like that without them understanding how hateful it is.

Cheswick never said that. Here's what Cheswick said in post #87, which is the post you responded to by accusing her of hating gay people:

The issue is whether you have a right to force them to carry a pregnancy to birth because the fetus is gay. A woman's right to chose should not be subject to your opinion that every gay fetus is precious.

Why would you want women who hate gay people enough to abort a gay fetus, to have a gay child? Would you force her to then give that child up so that she wouldn't emotionally abuse it by trying to force the child to be straight? Wouldn't that make her an incubator for real?

Why is it any of your business anyway?

There isn't ONE WORD about how aborting a gay fetus is "acceptable". There isn't even ONE WORD of juedgement about anyone who abort a fetus because they didn't want a gay child. The post merely asks outinforce why he would want to force a woman to have a gay child she didn't want.

And outinforce responded by attacking her, instead of answering the questions, as he has a habit of (see his other posts in this thread)

[outinforce]

290. I Guess

I guess, sangh0, that you will never see anything that you really do not want to see.

You are technically correct (as you often are) when you lecture me about what it was, exactly, that cheswick did or did not say.

Here, if you need to know, is one of the statements I find to be reflective of a deep antipathy towards gay people:

"Why would you want women who hate gay people enough to abort a gay fetus, to have a gay child?"

To me, that says that it is OK for homophobes to abort gay fetuses.

You may not think that that statement is hateful, and that's really fine with me.

But as a gay person who went through what a lot of other gay people go through -- coming out to one's own parents -- I can tell you that I consider that statement to be terrbily hateful.

I'm not quite sure why you continue to post messages to and about me in the manner in which you do.

I hope you understand when I suggest that I consider some of your statements (for instance "The posts were deleted because they were hateful...so it's no surprise to me that you found them "admirable"") to be unneccsarily mean-spirited.

I'm really not sure whether it is your intention to provoke me or merely to demonstrate something about yourself.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Well, you answered

which makes having a discussion a lot easier.


My basic objection to what cheswick has said is that to me it is hateful to suggest that it would be acceptable for a homophobic couple who discovered that a fetus had a "gay gene" to abort that fetus. I just can't imagine anyone saying something like that without them understanding how hateful it is.


Well I disagree with the characterization. You say the post 'suggest(s) that it would be acceptable' when in fact it asks 'whether you have a right to force them to carry a pregnancy to birth because the fetus is gay. '

Your characterization seems to me to add an air of approval that was absent from the original post. It is perfectly reasonable to defend someone's right to do something, even if you find the manner in which they choose to exercise that right to be abhorrent. Case in point, the ACLU defending the KKK's right to free speech.

[outinforce]

291. This Is The Statement

that I think reflects a notion that it would be acceptable for a homophobe to abort a gay fetus:

"Why would you want women who hate gay people enough to abort a gay fetus, to have a gay child"

[sangh0]

292. And that does NOT say it's "acceptable" as you falsely claimed

Even you admit that the only place "acceptable" was heard, was in your own mind:

cheswick: "Why would you want women who hate gay people enough to abort a gay fetus, to have a gay child?"

outinforce: To me, that says that it is OK for homophobes to abort gay fetuses.

"To me, that says..." means that it wasn't actually said, but outinforce still insisted (up until now) that Cheswick said it, and that outinforce didn't put words into anyone's mouth.

[outinforce]

293. I Put Words In No One's Mouth

What I said was how I perceived the statement.

I am frankly amazed that you cannot see the difference.

You have said in many posts on this thread what my motives in saying something were.

Or what I "really" meant.

And yet you object to me expressing the way in which I understood a statement by another poster?

What, exactly, is your point in all of your posts attacking me?

[sangh0]

294. And I'm amazed at how someone who makes such an effort

to determine what someone thinks, chose to accuse Cheswick of something she never said, instead of asking what she meant.

What, exactly, is your point in all of your posts attacking me?

To me, that asks "Why do you flatter me so often?"

[outinforce]

301. Whatever

I in no way whatsoever consider your posts to me to be flattery of any sort at all.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

299. That's not a statement, it's a question.

Perhaps this has something to do with why I find your reasoning to be flawed. It's not a statement. If you are understanding it as a statement, then you are misunderstanding.

It is a question.

[sangh0]

303. In addition to "confusing" a question with a statement

outinforce also falsely claimed that "when I saw my child on the monitor" is a phrase that includes a "figure of speech", but he has yet to identify the figure of speech.

Propogandists regularly try to create new definitions for words, or invent new words. Just as Bush* invents phrase like "homicide bombers" and redefines words like "terrorist", outinforce redefines questions as statements, and words that mean what they literally mean are "figures of speech"

In another post, the subject line said "A Question", but the post contained no questions. When I pointed that out, he changed the subject line to read "My Hope". You can read it up near the top of the thread

[outinforce]

310. Questions Sometimes

conceal statements.

But, then, you already knew that, didn't you?

You are playing unfairly here, and you know it.

You were the one who first said that I literally interpreted some words that you thought were just a "figure of speech". If you get to define a certain phrase as being a mere "figure of speech" and suggest that the literal meaning of those words is not what the words mean, they so can I. And if I am a "propogandist", as you suggest, for doing so, then I submit so are you.

But, then, you already knew all of this, didn't you?

[outinforce]

305. So Are You Saying Then,

I asked this question of cheswick:

"Why Do You Hate gay people so much that you insist that it is OK for a fetus to be aborted simply because it might be gay?"

It seems to me that if you want to suggest that I somehow misunderstood cheswick's question to be a statement, then you would also have to say, I think, that I never really made any statement that cheswick hates gay people.

After all, I merely asked a question.

My point is this -- sometimes questions disguise statements.

cheswick's question was more than a mere question.

[sangh0]

312. No, questions can contain statement within

Your question didn't ask if Cheswick hates gays. It states it as fact, and then asks why Cheswick hates gays.

Cheswicks' question assumed that you think a woman who hates gays should not abort a gay fetus (a reasonable assumption since you said it), and then asks why you think that.

IOW, Cheswicks question included a statement about something you actually said. Your question included a statement about something Cheswick never said.

[outinforce]

318. Jesus Christ on Roller Skates!

Just where do you come off saying that I said things I never said?

"Cheswicks' question assumed that you think a woman who hates gays should not abort a gay fetus (a reasonable assumption since you said it)"

Where?

Where did I say that?

[sangh0]

326. Are you really going to deny it?

Do you think it's OK to abort a fetus because it's gay?

[outinforce]

331. Nice Try. BUT

Nice try, there, sangh0.

But was you yourself have lectured me, it is really not appropriate to asnwer a question with a question.

You said:

"Cheswicks' question assumed that you think a woman who hates gays should not abort a gay fetus (a reasonable assumption since you said it)"

I asked you where?

Where did I ever say that?

You answer my question.

You choose to post all over this thread that I have no credibility.

If so, it is thanks in no small part to you smears and attacks of me.

Put up or shut up.

Where did I ever say that I think a woman who hates gays should not abort a gay fetus.

Where?????

[sangh0]

334. Do you think it's OK to abort a fetus just because it's gay?

If you don't think it's OK, then why complain when I say you don't think it's OK?

[outinforce]

341. Why won't you point out where the I said what you claimed I said?

Why won't you support your own assertions?

[sangh0]

344. You can easily disprove my assertion, if you really want to.

All you have to do is say "I think it's OK to abort a fetus just because it's gay"

[outinforce]

348. Why won't you point out where the I said what you claimed I said?

Why won't you support your own assertions?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

317. LOL

sometimes all there is to do is point and laugh.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

304. dupe n/t

[dsc]

104. my point was that aside from the ethics of the matter

I was called nuts for stating that people would abort gay fetus not that the should or shouldn't do so. I think this article makes it pretty clear that more than a few people would. Regardless of the merits of aborting gay fetuses I am owed an apology for being called nuts for suggesting the possibility of it given the article.

[Cheswick2.0]

135. I don't remember anyone saying that to you, but I don't read every post

on this board. What I did see people post was that you were nuts to think women were aborting at 8 months simply because they don't feel like being pregnant anymore.

[dsc]

153. Please site a post where I said anything like it

You have a star. Either withdraw your post or back it up. I am fed up with pro choicers making up stories about what I say.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

252. You make me laugh at the most unexpected times.

Yet another demand for an apology!!

LOL!

[Tansy_Gold]

4. I read it, and I'm more pro choice than ever

As a staunch pro-choicer, my position has always been that no one has a right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want, no matter what her reason for not wanting it.

Women terminate healthy pregnancies because they already have too many children, or because they just don't want a baby right now, or because they broke up with the boyfriend who impregnated them and the new boyfriend doesn't want the old one's "leavings." Some might consider these "bad" reasons for aborting.

But are these reasons any "worse" than "I have a career and two healthy children and having a child with a several disability would put an undue hardship on my entire family, including my finances. I could raise this child and love it, but I would rather not experience the stress and risk that I wouldn't love it or that it would tear my family apart."

Pro choice means pro choice -- the woman's choice, not ours.


Tansy Gold

[Feanorcurufinwe]

256. Thank you for clearly stating what pro-choice really means.

Personally I am baffled by the notion that people are more outraged at someone terminating a pregnancy because of birth defects than someone terminating a pregnancy because they don't want a child.

:wtf:

Either it's the woman's choice, or it's someone else's.

[SW FL Dem]

5. I've been pro- choice for 30+ years

But I have also struggled with the pain of infertility. I've seen women who don't deserve the joy of motherhood, get pregnant and take their gift for granted. It's a tough choice for everyone. We opted to adopt and now have an wonderful son who couldn't be more like me even if he was genetically related.

[disinfo_guy]

6. Is there anything wrong with killing a defective fetus?

Well, is there?

[dsc]

7. Yeah killing a fetus with 6 fingers

or poor vision is morally reprehensible. Oh, and one morally disturbed woman aborted a child solely due to it being a girl (her fourth).

[DoNotRefill]

10. IT WAS NOT A CHILD.

It was a FETUS. Healthy, unhealthy, gay, straight, blue eyed, black eyed, demonic red-eyed, it doesn't matter. It's still just tissue.

It's possible to make a good-faith argument that a third trimester fetus which is capable of surviving outside of the womb is a child. I don't agree with it, but it's possible to make the argument. But a first or second trimester Z/E/F??? NO FUCKING WAY.

I WISH I had been aborted as a Z/E/F. Why? Because I have a permanent, debilitating congenital birth defect that makes the old saying "life is pain" a literal thing with me. It would have been a lot easier on all involved if these tests had been around back then, so that my parents would have known about it and could have aborted me. Of course, since abortion was illegal back then, it didn't matter anyway. When my wife got pregnant, we talked about it, and decided that if the baby had what I have, we'd abort. It wasn't because of not wanting to be bothered by it, it was because life sucks with this birth defect, and inflicting it on a child KNOWINGLY would be cruel in the extreme. In our book, it'd be like beating the child every day of her life, without the effort on our part of actually beating her or the ability to stop.

Abortion is a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT. On Demand, No Apology. It's a woman's choice, and her reasons for making that choice are COMPLETELY FUCKING IMMATERIAL. If you don't like it, fuck off, it ain't your body.

[pop goes the weasel]

31. Hey, that's my daughter's reason, too!

And if I had known then what I know now, I would have had an abortion. Bringing a child into the world when you know that they will suffer daily, increasingly worse, pain isn't loving. It is cruel. I had no idea at the time that she faced a life of constant pain, and my daughter doesn't blame me, but she also doesn't plan to have a birth child of her own because she doesn't want to pass on the agony.

Sorry if that disturbs anyone, but too bad. Really disturbing is watching someone you love be in pain and be unable to do a damned thing to help.

[theboss]

42. Yikes......

Have you actually told your child you wished you would have aborted her?

I can't imagine that conversation.

[republicansareevil]

55. What a nice way to make this poster out to be a monster.

What if you were about to create a child, I mean even before conception, and God came down and told you that the child you were about to create would have a condition that would cause them constant pain. Would you go ahead and create that child? Most people would not. Now suppose you had a child and didn't find out about this condition until after the child was several years old. Would you feel the same way? Probably not. Everyone loves their children after they're born. I'm sure this poster loves her daughter and is glad that she has her in her life. That doesn't mean she can't be honest about the fact that she would have chosen to end the pregnancy if she'd had certain information ahead of time.

Even though a child may be loved and wanted after he/she is born, that doesn't mean all pregnancies are good things. Suppose a 15-year-old girl gets pregnant. When she finds out she is pregnant she wishes she could go back in time and make different choices. But the girl goes ahead and has the baby anyway and tries to make the best of it. The girl has to give up on her dream of going to college. They can never move out of their neighborhood into a safer one. And this baby has a lot of other things going against it even if the mother loves the baby. Would you say to that teenager "how can you tell your child after he/she grows up that you wished you had not gotten pregnant"? But that is the truth. The girl did wish she hadn't gotten pegnant. And it probably would have been a better thing if she had abstained or used birth control. Does that make abstinence wrong?

[outinforce]

57. No.

"Everyone loves their children after they're born."

No they don't.

Some people hate their children after they are born.

Those folks make a choice -- to subject their kids to all sorts of mental (and sometimes physical abuse).

WOuldn't it just make much more sense to give parents the right to choose to end the lives of kids they really don't want to have?

[republicansareevil]

68. Fine.

If you're going to be parsing everyone's sentences... I admit it is not literally true that all parents love their children. That's just one of those universal statements many people say, like "we all want the best for our children", "everyone likes ice cream," "all teenagers think their parents are idiots," "no one likes to hear 'I told you so'" etc. None of those is thought to be literally true 100% of the time. So you caught me. My point was that it is possible to love a child after it is born and still be honest enough to admit it may have been better to end the pregnancy or not get pregnant in the first place.

I'm not going to discuss your second point with you because that's not my discussion. You may have meant to address that to someone else.

I will say (to address some later posts of yours) that just because people use phrases like "with child" or talk about their "child" when still in the fetal stage, that doesn't really indicate any sort of ideological point of view. Even a couple planning to start a family may talk about their "child" or "children" as some future concept. I think it's a mark of a weak argument when you have to rely on tripping people up on semantics.

[outinforce]

70. Fine, Too

I do apologize if I mis-interpeted or mistated what you were intending to say.

It does occur to me, though, that your original post responded to another person who had posted this:

"Yikes......Have you actually told your child you wished you would have aborted her? I can't imagine that conversation."

Your response to that poster?

It was this; "What a nice way to make this poster out to be a monster."

I think I understand your point about parsing another person's language -- or, as you put it, relying on "tripping people up on semantics" -- being the mark of a weak argument.

I'm just not too sure that you really believe it. Or perhaps you don't believe it when you yourself are the one doing the parsing.

[pop goes the weasel]

74. Yes

I have told her that, if I had known, I would do anything I could to save her from the pain she has gone through, that if I could go back in time, I would tell me to get an abortion and save her; better, I would tell me to avoid her dad and our unhappy genetic combination. If you lived our lives, you would understand that she welcomed the sentiment and feels it is a testament to love. You, who have no idea what we have been through together, have not lived with a child who fondly talks of having her limbs amputed so they will stop hurting her. You haven't lived with a child who is in fear of rupturing internal organs, of having a complete vasuclar breakdown. You have no idea of the physical and emotional burdens she has carried. If you have a child who dreams of having her brain transplanted into a robot body, you might begin to be able to imagine the conversation in which the mother says, "I'm sorry that I didn't know I should abort you," and the now-grown child says "That's OK. I don't blame you for not knowing." You might understand why a mother would ask a child's forgiveness for bringing her into the world.

[outinforce]

77. Still,.....

"You haven't lived with a child who is in fear of rupturing internal organs, of having a complete vasuclar breakdown. You have no idea of the physical and emotional burdens she has carried. If you have a child who dreams of having her brain transplanted into a robot body, you might begin to be able to imagine the conversation in which the mother says, "I'm sorry that I didn't know I should abort you," and the now-grown child says "That's OK. I don't blame you for not knowing." You might understand why a mother would ask a child's forgiveness for bringing her into the world."

Still.

Still your daughter has known what love feels like.

She knows what if feels like to have a mother who loves her, even with all of the terrible pain she has endured.

Something, despite all of the pain, must be sustaining an idea in your daughter that being alive is better than not being alive.

And I would bet that that something -- the thing that helps your daughter continue to live despite what must be terrible excruciating pain -- must be love. Your love for her.

What a loss it would have been if your daughter had never been born and never known your love.

[DoNotRefill]

186. I don't commit suicide....

because I know it would devastate the people around me, and I know how selfish it would be of me to do what's best for me when the cost to others would be so high.

If my mother was dead and I had no siblings/wife/child on the way, I'd have killed myself long ago. I even have a gun set aside just for that.

[outinforce]

208. Love Is A Wonderful Thing, Isn't It?

Love sustains life. Even the life of someone who suffers greatly.

Even though we have traded barbs on this and other threads, I must say that I do admire you for being so concerned about the people that you love that you have chosen to remain alive, despite your suffering. That is true love.

And it is also good, in my opinion, that you and your wife are having a child. I hope that your child, after he or she is born, will be one more reason to choose life over death. And I hope that your child will be one more person who will make the world a richer and better place simply because he or she was born and loved and was loved.

This may sound presumptuous of me, but I hope that you, too, realize that this world is a different place because you are in it. Even though we have disagreed, I would not be the person I am right now if I had not had some discussions with you here on DU. And the world would be that much poorer if you were ever to choose to use the gun you mention. I hope you never do. And I hope that the love that has kept you from killing yourself will remain for a long, long, long time.

[DoNotRefill]

218. I'm virtually positive that one day I will end up killing myself.

my condition is degenerative. I'll hold out as long as I can, but my family knows at some point, it'll get too bad for me to stand any more, and I'll take my own life. Since they've watched the progression of my condition, they know how much pain I go though daily, and they understand that eventually there must be an end. I've tried not to be selfish, and my family understands that while they want me with them for as long as possible, at some point they have to stop being selfish and let me go.

Death is inevitable. Even if you are healthy. I choose to reserve the right to meet death on my own terms and at a time of my choosing.

[outinforce]

225. I Would Never Presume

to tell someone who has the life you do how or when to end it. That's up to you.

What I would encourage you to do, though, is to hold onto the love you share with those who love you and those whom you love.

And I would also encourage you to never ever forget that the world is a much better place because you were born, you loved, and you affected people you never knew in ways you never knew.

[theboss]

80. I'm trying to figure out how to say this . . . .

As I mentioned later, I have a disability and have had some problems in life because of it. But none of the problems has been so bad to have made me wish to have never lived at all.

And if life for her is so bad, why don't you help her end her pain? (I'm not suggesting you do this; I am just wondering). In other words, if her life is so bad that she wishes she had never lived, why continue living?

The answer is (I think): there is some value to her life. In fact, there is as much value to her life as there is yours, mine, or Ted Kennedy's.

This is where I part with the Pro-Choice crowd. I see abortion as a necessary evil for difficult circumstances. I do not think it should be used as a form of birth control nor - as this kind of argument proposes - a form of eugenics.

[Cheswick2.0]

98. so you think you should exchange your judgement for that of the pregnant

person? What makes your judgement better than hers?

[theboss]

170. Society imposes value judgments on people all the time

This is why euthanasia is such a touchy issue. It's why we have anti-discrimination laws. Person X may not want to hire black people; society imposes its values on person X and says, you can't refuse employment for that person.

What if Person X doesn't want to have a brown-eyed baby? I admit this is a lot trickier. But I don't know if we want to endorse this sort of behavior. Do I think there should be laws against it? No. But I think I can still say it's wrong.

[sangh0]

176. So what?

The question didn't refer to SOCIETY's value judgements. It referred to yours.

[theboss]

188. Good Lord

Who left you in charge of the class? I'm sorry I didn't answer a question you didn't ask to your satisfaction, counselor.

My point is, I am part of society. If I - along with a few million of my friends - thinks that something is wrong, it's wrong. This is apparently why I can't go home and get high tonight. That's where I get the right to express my OPINION that aborting fetuses for some the reasons mentioned in the original post is wrong.

Of course, I think somehow making a law to end this sort of practice is far more dangerous than the practice itself.

But I can still come to the conclusion that a mother who would abort two children because of an extra finger that can be fixed by surgery has something deeply deeply wrong with her.

[sangh0]

199. "a few million of my friends "

Who left you in charge of the class?

No one. As I understand it, I have as much right to post as you do. Who do you imagine put you in charge?

My point is, I am part of society

So am I. And the majority of society thinks abortion should be lefal. Furthermore, regardless of how many millions think otherwise, right and wrong are not subject to majority rule. At one time, millions thought slavery was right.

It wasn't.

This is apparently why I can't go home and get high tonight.

No, if you can't do that, it's because it's illegal, not because millions think it's wrong. Tonight, I'm going to masturbate, an act millions consider depraved and immoral, but that won't stop me. TMOT.

But I can still come to the conclusion that a mother who would abort two children because of an extra finger that can be fixed by surgery has something deeply deeply wrong with her.

Not only are you ABLE to do that, you have a moral obligation to do so, IMO

[Cheswick2.0]

184. what does any of that have to do with abortion?

apples and oranges my friend. If there is going to be a judgement about when abortion is or is not alright then the judgement of the pregnant is as good as anyone elses. None of your business what my moral judgement is. Get a uterus and you can control it.

[theboss]

192. I am not asking for control

But I can still think that you are a sick person if you abort a fetus for the above listed reasons. I have no interest in controlling your life; but I don't sacrifice my sense of right and wrong.

This is where the radicals on this issue really lose me. It's not enough that I believe a woman has the right to choose. It seems that I am expected to cheer every abortion as some sort of victory when it reality I see it as a tragic, though necessary, part of life.

[sangh0]

211. Who has asked you to cheer every abortion?

I am expected to cheer every abortion as some sort of victory

Or did you just make that up?

[outinforce]

213. You Seem To Understand

You seem to understand that there is a difference between being "pro-choice" and being "pro-abortion".

This is a distinction that is lost on many people.

Those who, as you say, "cheer every abortion as some sort of victory" are the people who I think are pro-abortion. Some of them, I think, are actually anti-choice. They would try to make women who do NOT have abortions feel guilty. ("You have HOW many kids?")

[DoNotRefill]

180. I've told my mother....

that I wish she'd aborted me.

She didn't freak out or anything. She understands why.

[outinforce]

215. I'm Not Sure About This

But I would guess that your mother did not freak out or anything and told you that she understood was because she loves you.

But I would also guess that, because she loves you, there is a part of her that is glad that she knows you.

[theboss]

242. So why do you keep living?

I'm seriously curious and hope I am not being callous. If you wish you had never existed in the first place, why haven't you ended it?

[DoNotRefill]

251. because the costs would outweigh the benefits....

yes, it'd be nice to be free of the pain. But at the same time, it'd cause a hell of a lot of pain for those who I care about deeply.

If the people I care about were all dead, it'd be an easy decision for me. They aren't. So I keep doing my best to get by.

[outinforce]

47. We Kill Horses, Don't We?

"Bringing a child into the world when you know that they will suffer daily, increasingly worse, pain isn't loving. It is cruel."

If that is cruel, then isn't it also cruel to keep such a child, once born, alive?

"Sorry if that disturbs anyone, but too bad. Really disturbing is watching someone you love be in pain and be unable to do a damned thing to help"

I know it is painful to watch someone you love be in pain and be legally unable to do a damned thing to help.

Perhaps parents should have a legal right to choose to end the lives of children who will suffer daily, increasingly worse pain.

After all, we don't want to be cruel.

[pop goes the weasel]

76. You have no idea

If your child were to have a car wreck that put him in pain, wouldn't you say that you wish you could stop the wreck from ever happening? Would that mean that you wanted to kill your child now? Well, what if the wreck was the conception or birth itself? You always wish that you had prevented the disaster which befell them. Unless you are some sort of weirdo who thinks "Oh good. My child's freedom and comfort have been curtailed. Wonderful! Now they will be more dependent on me than they would have been otherwise!" And if that's your reasoning, what's stopping you from doing further injury to them to keep them in more pain, more debilitation, and more dependency? You must be a freakish child abuser.

See, two can play at this stupid game.

[outinforce]

79. "Stupid Game"??

Of course I would say that if a person I loved had been in a car wreck I would want, if I had the power to do it, make it so the wreck never happened.

But I'm not too sure I see your point.

I don't know if you are saying that giving the gift of life is a disaster that befalls some people or not.

I think I understand that a life of constant, unrelenting, excruciating pain is a life of great challenge -- both to the person who lives it, and to the persons who, because they love the person in pain, care for him or her.

And I can certainly understand that if I felt that I were in some way responsible for the life of the person, it would trouble me terribly, especially if I had had the power to prevent the pain and did not use the power I had to do so.

But still, I'm not too sure that I could ever agree that there is anything like a life that is not worth living -- or a live that should not have been born.

That is what troubles me about the notion that it would have been better to abort a child because the child is living a life of pain.

It comes close, I think, to saying that the pain of the person's life somehjow invalidates any joy or love or happiness that he or she has known in his or her life. That all that joy or love or happiness that exists only because the person was born and can therefore experience joy and love and happiness is something that the life of pain cancels out.

I'm not playing any stupid game here.

[sangh0]

93. Yes, it's a "stupid game", and it's calledd "Straw Men"

And you seem to be the resident expert, always putting words in other people's mouths and disguising it as an attempt to understand what the other person is saying. For example:

But I'm not too sure I see your point.

I don't know if you are saying that giving the gift of life is a disaster that befalls some people or not.

Even though the poster to which he's responding has never said "giving the gift of life is a disaster..yadda yadda", for some odd reason, outinforce wants to promote the idea that that is what the poster MEANT. Another example:

It comes close, I think, to saying that the pain of the person's life somehjow invalidates any joy or love or happiness that he or she has known in his or her life.

Another attempt to misportray another's person by implying they have an opinion they've never had.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

103. Why won't you point out where the poster said what you claimed they said

or are you trying to avoid making your straw men too obvious?

[outinforce]

106. Are You In The Habit

of asking questions to posts that have been deleted?

[sangh0]

109. Why won't you point out where the poster said what you claimed they said

or would you rather distract by attacking me?

[outinforce]

115. Attacking YOU?

Who is the one here who is posting to this thread that I am a "resident expert" at putting things into other people's mouths

That would be YOU. Not me. YOU.

I am still glad to see that you took care (at least in part) of that little charade that you had been engaged in here on DU.

Does the sig line on your other DU screen name refer to sangh0?

[sangh0]

119. Why won't you point out where the poster said what you claimed they said?

Why won't you support your own assertions?

[outinforce]

216. What?

What assertions?

You keep asking me to back up "my assertions".

What are you talking about?

[outinforce]

116. Why Won't You

answer my question?

Are you in the habit of replying to deleted posts?

[sangh0]

120. Why won't you point out where the poster said what you claimed they said?

WHy won't you support your own assertions?

[outinforce]

136. What assertions?

What assertions are you talking about, exactly?

[sangh0]

145. Why won't you point out where the poster said you claimed they said?

For example:

But I'm not too sure I see your point.

I don't know if you are saying that giving the gift of life is a disaster that befalls some people or not.

Even though the poster to which he's responding has never said "giving the gift of life is a disaster..yadda yadda", for some odd reason, outinforce wants to promote the idea that that is what the poster MEANT. Another example:

It comes close, I think, to saying that the pain of the person's life somehjow invalidates any joy or love or happiness that he or she has known in his or her life.

Another attempt to misportray another's person by implying they have an opinion they've never had.

[outinforce]

149. What Assertions?

I don't see any assertions in what I posted.

I see an observation.

I see another observation that makes no assertion at all.

And I see an opinion.

The only assertions I see are yours:

for some odd reason, outinforce wants to promote the idea that that is what the poster MEANT.

Another attempt to misportray another's person by implying they have an opinion they've never had.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

258. Are you proud of having your post deleted or something?

:wtf:

Failing to follow basic rules of civil discourse is not something to be proud of.

[sangh0]

264. No, he isn't. He's trying to distract

by trying to make it seem like *I'm* the one who did something wrong when it was HIS post that was deleted.

[outinforce]

267. Once Again,

you presume to know my motives.

Unless you ask me -- specifically -- what my motive was in posting something, I think you have little basis for presumking to know my motives, and even less reason to post something stating my motives.

You seem to be not quite content in putting words into my mouth.

Now you have to post things that falsely attribute motive to my posts??

What's next?

[outinforce]

266. All I can Tell

is that a post was deleted.

I'm not too sure whose it was, or why it was deleted.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

273. Is that the truth?

I don't think so.

[Name removed]

287. Deleted message

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

[outinforce]

113. Reading Comprehension For Some

"Yes, it's a "stupid game", and it's calledd "Straw Men"" And you seem to be the resident expert, always putting words in other people's mouths and disguising it as an attempt to understand what the other person is saying.

I would respectfully with your assertion that I am the "resident expert" at "putting words in other people's mouths and disguising it as an attempt to understand what the other perosn is saying.

For example:

I don't know if you are saying that giving the gift of life is a disaster that befalls some people or not.

"Even though the poster to which he's responding has never said "giving the gift of life is a disaster..yadda yadda", for some odd reason, outinforce wants to promote the idea that that is what the poster MEANT."

Who is putting words into another person's mouth here? Who is the one who is saying -- without any proof at all -- what anoter person "wants to promote? Who is the one who is saying what another poster meant?

I think that would be you. Not me. YOU.

I took great care in saying that "I did not know" whether the other poeter was saying something or not.

You, however, say unequivocally, with not condition at all, that I want to promote "the idea that that is what the other poster meant".

YOu are simply wrong to say that I wanted to promote any such idea. YOU are the one who is the resident expert in putting words into other people's mouths. Not me. YOU.

Another example:

'It comes close, I think, to saying that the pain of the person's life somehjow invalidates any joy or love or happiness that he or she has known in his or her life.

Another attempt to misportray another's person by implying they have an opinion they've never had. "

I was sharing MY opinion. Got it? MY OPINION. I was not implying anything about any one else's opinion. GOT THAT? No implication.

You are the one who reads things that are not there.

You are clearly the resident expert here, sangh0. YOU. Not me.

[sangh0]

121. You could have asked

"What did you mean by that?" or "I don't know if you are saying that giving the gift of life is NOT a disaster that befalls some people or not." but for some reason you chose to use the interpretation that puts the poster in the worst possible light.

[outinforce]

154. I Suppose

But, then I would not have had the happiness that comes from reading all the posts from you.

You knw ones I mean.

The ones where for some reason you take what I have posted and choose to use the interpretation that puts me in the worst possible light.

You're very good at doing it, too. Do you and sangha give lessons?

[sangh0]

177. You don't need any lessons

but it is funny to see you complain about how I do the same thing as you do.

[outinforce]

197. I Could

certainly learn a thing or two or three from you and your little friend.

I wish I could say that it is funny to see you complain about how I do what you do.

But I find your complaints to be totally without substance.

And vicious.

[sangh0]

200. That's for sure Chester

.

[outinforce]

217. Why, THANKS!

Thanks for two things.

First, thanks for using the name Chester. I think it is a wonderful name.

Second, thanks --THANKS A LOT -- for agreeing with me that your complaints are totally without substance. And vicious.

They are also extremely annoying.

[DoNotRefill]

196. Actually, I have plans to kill my mother

if certain circumstances are fulfilled. She's had a bunch of strokes. She lives in serious fear of being a vegetable. Sure, she's made a living will and put in "non-resuscitation" orders, et cetera, but she spends a lot of time in Florida, and we all know how the lunatic governor down there is when it comes to the right to die.

If necessary, I'm prepared to take her life as an act of kindness as she's requested. In the eyes of the law, it'll undoubtedly be an act of murder. To her, it'll be the ultimate act of kindness. She's prepared other documents to aid in my defense if it ever happens, but I'm almost positive I'll be convicted anyway.

[outinforce]

219. I Would Not Ever Want

I would not ever want to suggest that you defy your own mother's wishes.

After all, she is the one who gave you life and who loved you.

But you might want to consider speaking to her physicians about your concerns. Most doctors can be sympathetic to your mother's concerns.

The real reason I mention this is your statement that you're almost positive that you would be convicted.

You are about, I think, to have a child. Just as your love for your mother/siblings/wife has kept you from taking your own life, might I suggest that you carefully consider how a conviction for the murder of your own mother (especially if it is in a state that has capital punishment) might affect your child?

[DoNotRefill]

224. This was done long ago....

"But you might want to consider speaking to her physicians about your concerns. Most doctors can be sympathetic to your mother's concerns."

when we prepared the non-resuscitation orders.

If it was a matter left between patients and their doctors, there would be no problem. Unfortunately, that's not always the case. I hope I never have to do it. Odds are pretty good that I will not ever have to do it. But if my mother is left in a permanent vegetative state, there's not a whole lot of choice. I can't let her suffer like that, when she's asked me to spare her the agony.

[disinfo_guy]

49. We are all "just tissue"

If you want to define it that way...

[DoNotRefill]

198. Nope...

I define human life as starting when tissue begins respiring with it's own lungs.

Most of us here are respiring as individual beings.

[outinforce]

51. But.......

"When my wife got pregnant, we talked about it, and decided that if the baby had what I have, we'd abort."

But.......

It isn't a baby.

It's just a lump of flesh.

[DoNotRefill]

201. It'll be a baby on July 7th....

It's not there yet. Getting close, but not yet there....and I'll tell you, we're on pins and needles. It weighs 7lbs 10 ounces, but ain't a separate life yet.

[theboss]

243. Do you love "it" yet?

n/t

[DoNotRefill]

253. No.

I love my wife. We're pretty excited about the possibility of her having a baby, but it isn't a "done deal" yet.

Ever hear the phrase "Don't count your chickens before they hatch"?

One way or another, it'll be over July 7th.

[redqueen]

282. Really?

So you would feel no emotional pain if anything unfortunate were to happen?

Does your wife love 'it' yet?

:crazy:

[DoNotRefill]

307. It's still a part of my wife.

I love my wife. If something happened, we'd be devastated, not because it's a child, but because it's a part of my wife. We'd be the same kind of devastated as if my wife developed treatable cancer, or if she lost an arm in a car accident.

If my wife lost her arm in a car wreck, we'd both be highly upset. We wouldn't consider the severed arm to be a separate person, however. Same deal with a fetus before it's born. We wouldn't hold a funeral service for the severed arm, and we wouldn't hold a funeral service for a miscarried fetus, either. Once the baby is born, if she were to die, we'd hold a funeral service, since by being born, the fetus became a person separate from my wife.

A fetus becomes a person when it's born. Not before. Prior to birth, it's tissue.

[redqueen]

320. I hear ya

It's disturbing, but I think I understand what you're saying.

However, you didn't answer about your wife's thoughts. She's felt the 'tissue' moving (independently from her and of it's own free will, I'd like to point out) inside her for months.

Would she also consider it to be as if she'd lost an arm or whatever?

[DoNotRefill]

323. Who can speak for another person?

She'd be pretty freaked if she lost the fetus. Of course, she'd be pretty freaked if she lost an arm, too. Of course, that's just my guesstimation of her response...

I've felt the fetus move. Of course, I've felt her stomach move on it's own before she got pregnant, when she had bad gas. That doesn't mean the gas was a separate person....or does it?

[redqueen]

325. I kind of thought you might have discussed it with her

:shrug:

And as for bad gas vs. baby?

You're really working hard for the other side here, aren'tcha?

:puke:

[DoNotRefill]

333. Hey, you don't see ME going around...

saying we should turn women into unwilling incubators...that's YOUR position.

I've talked with my wife a lot. I'm absolutely POSITIVE I know more about her position and her reactions than you do. But that doesn't mean that I can guarantee how she'll react to any given situation. She's a separate and distinct person. I THINK I know how she'll react, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

[redqueen]

340. Where did I say that?

You seem to think that's my position. Why?

It matters not what you think she might think. And quite honestly, considering your consistent inflammatory rhetoric on this subject, I'm shocked that you haven't directly sought out her thoughts.

Interesting...

[DoNotRefill]

345. I'm sorry, isn't your position that....

a fetus can be considered to be a child while it's still in the mother?

It's illegal for a mother to kill her child. That's black letter law, yes?

If you define a fetus as a child, it will become illegal to abort the fetus, because that would be killing a child. That turns the mother into an incubator, compelled BY THE STATE TO CARRY THE FETUS TO TERM, OR RISK A CONVICTION FOR MURDER. THAT IS SLAVERY.

[redqueen]

349. No

I simply assert that at some point during the pregnancy, the fetus could reasonably be considered as a child. There is a vast difference between a 20 week old fetus and a 36 week old fetus. One easy way to tell is that when a 20 week old fetus is delivered, it has little chance of survival. When a 36 week old fetus is delivered, it's indistinguishable from a full-term infant.

That's why there are permissible limitations to Roe v. Wade based on gestational age.



Are you planning to have a conversation with your wife about your strongly-held views? If not, why?

[theboss]

351. Your argument is just as extreme

If I recall correctly, your baby is due on July 7th. Under your theory, you could abort that "fetus" (which it isn't anymore, but anyway) on July 6th and feel no repurcussions even though the only difference between the child inside your wife and outside your wife is the way it feeds itself.

[outinforce]

358. I May Be Wrong Here

But I think that at one point you told me that merely leaving the mother's womb did not make a fetus a child.

I think, if I'm not mistaken, that youonce told me that the fetus needed to be both born and breathing.

Wouldn't that then mean a child that had left its mother's womb but had not yet breathed its first breath could be aborted?

I apologize if I have you confused with someone else.

However, if you do recall ever telling me this, I'm curious as to whether or nopt you still hold that opinion.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

96. "with child" is a figure of speech

like "in a family way"

There's no oneed to be so literal. You can leave that for the fundies.

[DoNotRefill]

210. It's because if my wife ever found out I said she's "gravid"....

she'd kick my ass. And she does read what I post here.

[Killarney]

58. WRONG

By the time a lot of this information can be attained (gender, physical characteristics, etc) the fetus is 20 weeks. At 20 weeks, it is NOT a lump of tissue. I know a boy who was born at 20 weeks and is now a happy, healthy 3 year old. Try telling his mother that when he was born at 20 weeks, he was a lump of tissue. At the age that some women abort fetuses, they ARE babies because they are VIABLE.

You should really read more about the development of a fetus. It stops being "tissue" very early on.

I'm pro-choice, but ignorant statements like this piss me off.

[redqueen]

63. Ignorant statements like that

are also part of the reason that moderate or religious democrats side with conservatives on this issue.

[Cheswick2.0]

111. I am a religious democrat,

actually very religious. I do not side with the republicans on this issue.

[redqueen]

165. Well, then there's one vote

that we didn't lose to the other side.

:party:

*sigh*

[Cheswick2.0]

108. oh no, you are mistaken

Many birth defects are found much earlier these days. Some birth defects that will lead to death at birth or extremely poor/no quality of life are found out later and women abort because there is no point to going on.
You friend was very lucky to have a healthy child from a 20 week birth. Most children born at that stage have severe life long health problems.

[MUSTANG_2004]

126. No, 20 weeks is about right

About 12 weeks is the earliest that they can test for genetic defects such as Down syndrome. The drawback to testing early is that the earlier the test, the more likely it is to result in a miscarriage or birth defects. If you wait for the safest testing window, you're looking at an abortion at about 20 weeks.

As far as whether a 20-week fetus is a child or not is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. I'm pro-choice, but there is NO doubt in my mind that when I saw my children on the ultrasound viewer at 4.5 months, they were people and an abortion at that stage would have been a tragedy. I could have no more suggested an abortion then as I could suggest we euthanize them now.

[sangh0]

129. Whether or not the fetus is a child is irrelevant

According to the law, a fetus is NOT "a person", and therefore is not entitled to any rights. You are free to think of it as a child or even a person, but as far as the law is concerned, it is not a person.

[MUSTANG_2004]

139. I never said otherwise NT

[sangh0]

146. Didn't say you did

.

[outinforce]

158. Then Why

then why did you post the comments that you did?

You must have wanted to make the other poster look bad.

That's just a terrible thing to do.

[outinforce]

163. Then Why??

Then why did you post what you did?

[sangh0]

181. Because

the poster was making the point that in his/her opinion, a fetus of a certain age is a child. I added the point that one's opinion could differ from the law, which states that a fetus is NOT a person.

[outinforce]

190. STRAWMAN!!! WRONG!!

"Because the poster was making the point that in his/her opinion, a fetus of a certain age is a child."

Is that a fact?

Here is, in fact, what the other poster said:

"No, 20 weeks is about right. About 12 weeks is the earliest that they can test for genetic defects such as Down syndrome. The drawback to testing early is that the earlier the test, the more likely it is to result in a miscarriage or birth defects. If you wait for the safest testing window, you're looking at an abortion at about 20 weeks.

As far as whether a 20-week fetus is a child or not is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. I'm pro-choice, but there is NO doubt in my mind that when I saw my children on the ultrasound viewer at 4.5 months, they were people and an abortion at that stage would have been a tragedy. I could have no more suggested an abortion then as I could suggest we euthanize them now."

The poster NEVER made the point that in his/her opinion, a fetus of a certain age is a child.

Why did you choose to mis-represent what this poster said?

Why did you choose to put words into this poster's mouth?

Why do you choose to lecture me when you are either unwilling or unable to correctly state what other people have posted????

[sangh0]

202. What was said

"when I saw my children on the ultrasound viewer at 4.5 months, they were people"

[outinforce]

221. What Was Said Was

was an opinion about how the poster considered her own children -- HER OWN KIDS. The poster was quite clear that she felt that whether someone felt that fetuses of a certain age were children or not was a matter of personal opinion.

Why YOU chose to attempt to portray this other poster in the most negative way you could is anyone's guess.

[outinforce]

157. Strawman.

"Whether or not the fetus is a child is irrelevant. According to the law, a fetus is NOT "a person", and therefore is not entitled to any rights. You are free to think of it as a child or even a person, but as far as the law is concerned, it is not a person."

The poster NEVER said that the fetus is a child.

Why did you choose to make a statement that put the other poster into the worst possible light?

Please back up your assertion.

[sangh0]

185. Yes, they did say it

when I saw my children on the ultrasound viewer at 4.5 months, they were people

[outinforce]

195. Saying

"when I saw my children on the ultrasound viewer...." is just a figure of speech.

You really do not need to take things people asay so literally.

Why not leave that approach to the fundies?

[Name removed]

203. Deleted message

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

[outinforce]

222. Lies?

You seem to have no problem lecturing me about what are figures of speech.

You seem to enjoy lecturing others.

But you also seem to enjoy getting into pure attack mode when someone lectures you.

[DoNotRefill]

207. Given the "well meaning pro-choice fools" (some tombstoned)...

in this thread, in another 20 years, it's possible that fetuses WILL have rights.

We've seen the start of it with the Peterson case.

I wonder if the "well meaning pro-choice fools" will feel good when abortion at 20 weeks becomes murder. After all, according to them, it's a child, right?

[sangha]

235. Undoubtedly, if they had their way

masturbation would be murder. And when abortion becomes murder, they won't feel "good". They'll feel morally superior.

[Cheswick2.0]

137. you just contradicted yourself

is it 12 or 20? Do you know? My statement was correct and you might want to know that I worked for a long time in a woman's clinic where we delt with all of these issues, so I have a good idea of what I am talking about.

[MUSTANG_2004]

141. What are you talking about?

CVS is at 12 weeks and is more risky.
Amnio is around 18-20 weeks.

What in that is a contradiction to anything else I wrote?

[kimchi]

169. 20 weeks is the edge of viability.

Most born that young do not live, and if they do, have very serious health problems. I wouldn't wish that upon my worst enemy. There are always, as you demonstrated, rare exceptions.

[redqueen]

174. Not as rare as some think, apparently

Check with some NICU nurses.

[kimchi]

220. How about a look at the statistics?

20 weeks - has hair on head, weighs one pound, 12 inches long.
23 weeks - 15% chance of viability outside of womb if birth premature.*
24 weeks - 56% of babies survive premature birth.*
25 weeks - 79% of babies survive premature birth.*
(*Source: M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal
of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.)

This is from an anti-abortion website, no less. I would conjecture that a 20 weeker has less than a 15% chance of making it.

[outinforce]

223. That's Your Source?

A medical journal that is 10 1/2 years old?

Medical science has advanced a lot since November, 1993.

Even the medicine involving neo-natal care.

So, while your observation that only a baby born at 23 weeks has only a 15% chance of viability outside the womb may have been true in 1993, I would wonder if it is still true today. My guess (and it is only that -- a guess) is that is is most likely higher now.

[kimchi]

234. You are right; the info is out of date.

According to MDLife a 1 pound baby has a survival rate of 43% (I don't know how recent the information is.) (At the 20th week, weight is only about 9 ounces.)
http://www.mdadvice.com/library/urpreg/wbw29.htm

"Better methods of caring for premature babies have contributed to higher survival statistics. Today, infants born as early as 25 weeks of pregnancy can survive. However, the long-term survival and quality of life for these babies remains to be seen as they grow older.

What is the survival rate for premature babies? The most recent information indicates for infants who weighed 1.1 pound (500g) to 1.5 pounds (700g), the survival rate is about 43%. For babies weighing between 1.5 pounds and 2.2 pounds (1000g), the survival rate is about 72%. These rates vary from hospital to hospital."

I'm sorry I can't find more information. I pretty much suck at searching on the internet. My sister is a nurse, and when I mentioned when I was 24 weeks pregnant that I was glad I had passed the milestone for survial, she grimaced. She told me that the majority of those born very early have serious disabilities.

[Cheswick2.0]

362. you would be correct

and when they do the odds that they will have severe health issues and severe disabilities is very high.

[DoNotRefill]

204. So, if you're using viability as a definition of life....

what happens 10 years down the road when science develops the means to take ovum and sperm and carry it to term without a human being involved at all except to provide genetic material? Once we reach that point, does male masturbation become mass-murder?

[graham67]

173. My ex and I chose....

to abort when the fetus tested positive for trisomy 13. It was the hardest fucking decision I ever made in my life. :(

[DoNotRefill]

212. I'm sorry for your loss......

but I think you did the right thing.

[graham67]

239. I know I did

It was the right choice for me.

[usregimechange]

8. I think so.

if it is after the first trimester. In the second and third trimester women should only be able to have abortions if their life is in danger. The fetus/infant have advanced brain development at that stage and is at least enough to warrant public protection. imo

[DoNotRefill]

11. that reduces a woman to an incubator.

thanks, but no thanks.

[shraby]

13. Doctors did a MRI on a very small premie

and found it had no brain convolutions at all. I would say the brain is not developed without convolutions. The premie was about 2-3lbs. if I remember right,at any rate it was small and would survive outside the womb, but they were extremely surprised at the development stage of the brain.

[usregimechange]

14. What than is the fetus/infant? Meat? Protect both, nt

[DoNotRefill]

15. A fetus is tissue, nothing more.

at some later point, it may become a living being, but until it's born, it's still just flesh.

[Bettie]

16. By that logic...

My full-term stillborn daughter was nothing for me to grieve, just "tissue"?

I am pro-choice and you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but I respectfully disagree with your interpretation.

My daughter was a child, a human being, who died due to a series of unfortunate events and an uncaring doctor.

Do not tell me that she was simply "tissue".

[DoNotRefill]

17. You certainly are right to greive over the loss of tissue....

ask any amputee about it.

But to say that tissue that has never taken a breath and was stillborn when delivered was a child is a stretch that I'm unwilling to make.

At what point does a fetus become a child? My answer is when the fetus starts to breathe. If there's no respiration, it's not alive.

[Valerie5555]

18. What about any mastectomized breast cancer patient like possibly

the "Big Dawg's" mama, had she survived by going through all that?????????????


I meant radiation, surgery and chemo...............

[DoNotRefill]

19. I don't understand your question.

I THINK you mean about the tissue removed during the masectomy, right?

[Valerie5555]

24. You bet which is actually a breast amputation though I luckily knew no one

with breast cancer.

[DoNotRefill]

27. Losing a part of you is a tragedy.....

but that tragedy doesn't make the lost part a separate human being on it's own.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Kool Kitty]

32. Abortion should be uncommon,

not encouraged, but available and legal. (I lost a child, too, through miscarriage and I am sorry for your loss.)

[Nevernose]

26. I, for one, am sorry for your loss, Bettie

I'm one of those folks who draws a big distinction between a baby and a fetus. If it can exist outside of the womb, it stops being a fetus and begins being a baby. The difference, as far as I'm concerned, is the difference between the potential of a human life and an actual human life.

My best friends -- as radically right-wing as you could ever hope to find -- have gone through YEARS and YEARS trying to have a baby. Miscarriages, stillbirths, ten-year waits for adoption... When they finally adopted a child, I have never seen more people, people of all different beliefs and all walks of life, more genuinely happy for someone else.

God bless you and yours.

[Bettie]

28. Thank you.

It is so hard for me to hear others say that my child and my loss are nothing.

There is no celebration like the one that comes when a family who has lost a child or suffered years of infertility is able to bring a child home. It is so special, so joyful, because the family knows, in an entirely different way than most people, what it means to have that child.

It is wonderful that your friends were able to bring a child home, even if they are right-wingers!

[Cheswick2.0]

114. It doesn't matter.... the woman is a living thinking human with the right

not to be forced to carry a pregnancy if she choses not to. Not your judgement, hers is what matters.

[Cheswick2.0]

112. So the unborn are more important than the women carrying them?

And another person with no uterus clocks in with an opinion.
Forced pregnacy, what a concept.

[NickB79]

65. How is having an extra finger a disability?

I have no problem with people aborting fetuses with genetic or physical disorders that would diminish their quality of life, but an extra finger that is surgically removed shortly after birth? What, that small scar will forever diminish the quality of life for that child somehow? Well, maybe if they're going to be a hand model. If you want to get technical, all humans harbor, on average, 3-4 lethal gene mutations. Would you classify everyone who even harbors a recessive gene that codes for a genetic disorder defective, because they have the potential to carry on the disorder to the next generation? No one is without defects. Look around you and see all the people with glasses, for example. One of the women in this article reported aborting due to poor eyesight that was correctable with glasses and/or laser surgery later in life. Imagine everyone you see who wears glasses or contacts gone, aborted because they didn't live up to a parent's ideas of perfection. I would not be here if that were the case, thanks to my less than 20/20 eyesight.

Come on people. Cases like this give the pro-choice movement a black eye by associating us with people like this and degrading the entire message we try to send, that abortions should be legal for all those that NEED them. Not all abortions must be defended by the pro-choice movement simply because they are abortions. Do we defend Zell Miller, just because he is a Democrat? No, we call him the nutball that he is and say he doesn't speak for the Democratic Party as a whole. This woman clearly did not need an abortion. I shudder to think how she would raise a child, if something as small as a 6th finger (which again is removed shortly after birth, so she'd never have to look at it) pushes her to abort.

[outinforce]

72. For Those That "Need" Them?

"Cases like this give the pro-choice movement a black eye by associating us with people like this and degrading the entire message we try to send, that abortions should be legal for all those that NEED them."

I think you may have meant to say that the message that the pro-choice movement tries to send is that abortions should be legal for all those that want them.

I have always understood the "it's my body" argument to be "If I want an abortion, I ought to be able to get an abortion". Because, as I understand it, if a woman who wants an abortion cannot have one, then she is little more than an incubator.

The woman mentioned in the NYT article apparently decided that she wanted an abortion.

Shouldn't that have simply ended the discussion?

[NickB79]

102. In a perfect world, yes the discussion would have ended there

But this is far from perfect. I agree with you that women should have the right to end a pregnancy when they want to, but I also assume that they will have a fairly coherent logic behind their desire. I just can't see the logic in terminating a pregnancy due to a easily correctable cosmetic issue like an extra finger or poor vision. Maybe there is something else to the story that I've missed, but from what is presented I just can't fathom why someone would abort a child because he needs glasses.

[outinforce]

159. Here's The Logic

"I agree with you that women should have the right to end a pregnancy when they want to, but I also assume that they will have a fairly coherent logic behind their desire. I just can't see the logic in terminating a pregnancy due to a easily correctable cosmetic issue like an extra finger or poor vision. "

Here's the logic:

I want an abortion.

What I want is all that matters.

Even if I want to have an abortion because the fetus has an easily correctable cosmetic issue, then the law cannot and should not stop me.

If I have to have a baby when I don't want to have one, then I am just an incubator.

At least, that's the way I understand the song gets sung.

[sangh0]

187. Then you don't understand the song

Or maybe, you constructed the song using bits and pieces of various people's opinions, mixing and matching them as it suits you.

[outinforce]

226. Then Why Don't You Sing

the song for us all in the manner ihn which YOU think it should be sung.

But be careful.

Don't construct a song using bits and pieces of various people's opinions, mixing and matching them as it suits YOU.

I'll be waiting for the dulcet tones of your little ditty.

[sangha]

236. I have no interest

in delving into the private lives of others. You may feel differently about it.

[DoNotRefill]

214. Nick, "need" is a piss-poor test for exercising a constitutional right.

It doesn't matter WHAT the issue is.

People don't NEED to vote. Denying them the right to vote because they don't "NEED" to vote is morally reprehensible.

People don't NEED to own assault rifles. Denying them the right to have assault rifles because they don't "NEED" them is morally reprehensible.

People don't NEED to have an abortion. Denying them the right to have an abortion because they don't "NEED" to have an abortion is morally reprehensible.


If it's a constitutionally protected right (and abortion IS a constitutionally protected right, unenumerated, but protected), REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT IS, NEED IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

[outinforce]

227. "Want" Would Be A Better Test For Exercising A Right

right?

[DoNotRefill]

229. It's a right.

There need be no reason for exercising a right.

[outinforce]

232. Yeah, A Right

a right is something that you can exercise whenever you WANT to.

I think we're saying the same thing here.

It's all about what a person wants -- not what they need.

[sangha]

237. You only understand half of your rights

It's also the right to REFRAIN from exercising the right whenever you DON'T want to.

It's all about what a person wants -- not what they need.

It's also about what they don't want.

[Bettie]

12. I come to this from a different perspective.....

I am pro-choice. I believe that women need to have control over their bodies.

I am also a mother who has had a full term stillborn child and two miscarriages. I know many bereaved parents and some of them faced the decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy due to fetal problems.

I know parents who carried a baby who did not have any chance of survival and who held that child in their arms as he took his last breath, only minutes after birth.

I also know parents who decided that they couldn't handle a child with Down's Syndrome and terminated, even though I know that I could not have done it myself.

Sometimes, I think that we know too much these days. Knowing that a baby has problems can allow the right staff to be available at the birth to give a good chance of survival.

I have a personal reaction to people who terminate due to minor and survivable defects (an extra finger?), sex, poor vision, but it is not my decision to make and it is not my place to sit in judgment of others, knowing that I do not know their minds or hearts.

I am sad for people who think that an extra finger or whether a child is a boy or a girl matters, but again, not my place to judge.

Now, I am not sure that I even had a point here, except that even with such sad stories, I have to be pro-choice, because if my daughter had lived, I would want her to be able to control her reproduction.

I have two living sons now. They are wonderful, even if in my heart, I had hoped that one of them would be a girl.

Bettie

[Tansy_Gold]

23. Thank you, Bettie, and welcome to DU

I think all of us can call up stories of our own or our friends' experience. Thank you for sharing yours, and sincere condolences on your loss.

I had a friend in pre-Roe times who was indeed forced to carry a pregnancy to term, a baby with severe disabilities. The parents tried to get a legal "therapeutic" abortion but couldn't. Their doctor turned them in to hospital authorities and the mother was virtually imprisoned in the hospital for three months until she gave birth. She was never allowed to see or hold her daughter, who was taken away from her because she had been declared an unfit mother. The baby died less than two years later, never having breathed without a respirator, never having eaten food because she was "fed" intravenously.

This NYT article is virtually designed to demonize the parents - and in particular the mothers -- who choose to terminate pregnancies. When the "right" to an abortion is put into the hands of anyone other than the woman who must carry that fetus, then no woman has a right to the control of her own body. Any of us could be tied to a hospital bed and forced to gestate.

If it's morally reprehensible to terminate a pregnancy because of poor eyesight or a sixth finger, is it any less morally reprehensible to terminate pregnancy because the mother forgot to take her pills and really doesn't want to lose her figure? What if the "baby" is absolutely perfect, but it's the product of a violent gang rape?

When the decision about whether an abortion is morally acceptable lies entirely in the "worth" of the baby, then the mother becomes irrelevant. I refuse to accept that.

Tansy Gold

{edited for typos, and I probably still didn't catch them all}

[Bettie]

25. I agree with you....

I still have my own opinion, but I cannot see into the hearts of others and cannot make their decisions for them. I can only know what I would do in a situation.

The article is certainly written for shock effect. The women they mention are definitely the exception and each of them has a right to do what she feels that she needs to given her situation.

I still have the right to my opinion, which comes from my own experiences as long as I do not use that opinion to force others to my will.

I do not seek to impose my moral code on anyone else. Each person must find their moral center and decide what works for them.

[Tansy_Gold]

29. I think the worst shortcoming of the article was that it didn't

give the women any credit for having felt any grief.

Too many anti-choicers believe -- or at least promulgate -- the myth that all women who abort do so without a second thought. Yet even those women who terminated a pregnancy for reasons that might seem merely "convenience" to some people still give the matter considerable thought. I don't doubt that even those who terminate for reasons like a sixth finger or poor eyesight or even the sex of the fetus still weighed the decision carefully.

I suppose the idea of a sixth finger and having it successfully removed comes across as a trivial reason for terminating a pregnancy. But maybe there's more to the story. I know that when my mother underwent hand surgery sixteen years ago, she lost complete use of her hands and fingers for several months and never regained full nerve function. Two or three fingers on one hand remain partially numb. So is it possible that the woman who had her own sixth finger surgically removed experienced something like that? Is it possible that what seemed like a trivial disability because of the way the newspaper described it might in fact be something much more?

Oh, and in response to the poster below, I began wearing glasses at age eight, was teased unmercifully for years because of it, and because my family was too poor for me to have contacts, I was discriminated against when it came to a lot of social activities. When I began having trouble with my vision a couple of years ago and was told by a most unpleasant ophthalmologist that I should either get trifocal glasses or have laser surgery, rather than attempt a change of contact lens types, I realized that my opposition to going back to glasses after over 30 years was because I did not even want to relive the trauma I'd experienced at age 8. I had no idea how traumatic it had been, until I faced it again.

Tansy Gold

[dsc]

33. Glasses have improved immensly since you were 8

I have worn glasses since around the same age. And they used to be pretty sorry to say the least. I recently found a pair of mine from highschool (they are likely 20 years old) and they are thick, bottle like lenses. In contrast my current glasses, which correct to pretty much the same level, are thin and stylish. I have worked in many, many schools with many, many age groups and can honestly say I have never seen a kid teased for glasses. Glasses look really good nowadays even for kids.

[Tansy_Gold]

36. I'm not disputing your assertion

but I am suggesting that someone who WAS subjected to bullying and humiliation because they wore glasses might see (pun intended) the prospect of their child going through it very differently.

[theboss]

166. I'm wearing glasses now

And I just find that a remarkably small reason to make a decision over existence over.

[Cheswick2.0]

117. perfectly stated Tansy

Thank you.

[Valerie5555]

21. Just wondered what they meant by abortions for "poor vision," did they

mean myopia or nearsightedness??????????????????????? What if the parents themselves, were myopics, who were teased and called names like "hey 4 eyes," as kids, just because they had to wear glasses??????????????


I had to wear glasses since age 14 for something like that, but was luckily never teased about it.

[dsc]

34. have they never heard of contacts?

For that matter glasses look a lot better nowadays.

[Solly Mack]

35. I'm not blaming a medical procedure for the prejudice and ignorance

of people.


I blame the people abusing a medical procedure because they are ignorant and prejudice.

Now, how many so-called "pro-life" people would rush to have an abortion should a "gay gene" be found? Talk about hypocrisy...but let's not confuse a medical procedure with an individuals hate, ignorance and prejudice.

[Tansy_Gold]

37. Excellent Post!

:thumbsup:

[MadHound]

38. Another thought to throw into the mix here

In China, where child birth is strictly controlled due to population concerns, parents are only allowed one child in most cases. After a woman has a child, her tubes are tied, or children are aborted. Therefore, this only child is carefully scrutinized while in the womb, and any defects mean an instant abortion. With many, many Chinese, having the child be female is considered a defect, and thus many female children are aborted, simply because they are female. This practice is starting to have a major impact on the population demographics of China. Currently seventeen percent more boys are born than girls, and this disproportionate rate is rising<http://www.cpirc.org.cn/en/enews20020514.htm>.

So, is having an abortion simply to choose the child's sex a legitimate reason for terminating a pregnancy? For as sexist as the United States is, I can see this practice taking hold here. Is this right? Is it moral?

Frankly I think aborting a fetus simply for a having a defect is rather cold and short sighted. Think of the talent and genius we would have lost out on if this practice was legal in our parents' day. Stevie Wonder, Stephen Hawkings, Ray Charles, just to name a few.

This all being said, I would like to mention that I am pro choice. But I also think that our moral and ethical framework needs to catch up with our technological capabilitie quickly. Cloning, gene splicing, selective abortions, these issues are quickly becoming a reality and we have to be ready to deal with them responsibly, otherwise we could wind up with an amoral brave new world.

[shanti]

64. people who use this to choose the sex

do it for parity in their families, NOT to have boys only like in china. you know, so they can have one boy and one girl, instead of all boys or all girls.

not making a value judgment here, just some info...

[theboss]

67. That's still a dangerous game for society

Nature has had a zillion years to figure out how many boys and girls should be born in each generation. I don't know if we want to tamper with that.

At least with general abortions, the ratios would not change because they would simply carry from the general population to that group.

[LittleApple81]

39. It is agonizing for the parent(s). That is where it should remain. I

know when I had my children, I did have tests (amniocinthesis) for birth defects. I personally would not knowingly bring to the world somebody with defects that would make his/her life a bigger hell than it already has the potential to be. I want the decision to be left to the parent. If they don't want to have a child with an extra finger... that is way over the top for me, but I am not the parent. I WANT WOMEN TO HAVE CHOICES. When MEN are the "containers" (and usually the most involved person in rearing a child as mothers are) for a baby, then it is up to them to decide.

[Timefortruth]

41. Society approves homicidal choices all the time.

Self defense and war are perfect examples. The societal choice to deprive a cancer patient life-saving treatment if she can’t afford it is an indirect homicidal choice. Why is the fetus supposed to have superior rights to anyone?

Child birth is one of the more dangerous things a woman can do. Abortion is far less risky. If a woman chooses not to take that risk, it is her prerogative; the same as the decision not to intervene in any situation for the benefit of another is an individual choice.

[theboss]

44. As someone with a disability, this terrifies me

I will state up front that I am pro-choice and am not changing that position. However, I don't want my "kind" wiped out because we don't meet someone else's view of perfection. Probably everybody on this board has some sort of "defect" in someone's eyes. I am not comfortable with the idea that my existence could be snuffed out for such a capicrious reason.

What really scares me is that this type of thing opens up the possibility to "wrongful birth" procedures. Suppose a doctor failed to identify that your child was going to be born with Downs' Syndrome. Would you have the right to sue for not knowing? Scary stuff.

[Walt Starr]

45. The re-thinking of my postiion is "how pro-choice am I?"

I used to be of the thought tyhat as a man, I cannot be against abortion at any time. I believed it was a choice I had to leave entireley to women.

After readin about women who have an abotrtion due to poor eyesight, a sixth digit, or as a means of choosing sex, I don't think I can morally continue with that stance.

[theboss]

46. I have never been of that opinion

I've never agreed with people who think the decision is 100 percent the woman's. I think the father should have a voice (though not necessarily a vote) as long as he has not abandoned his responsibility.

I mean, wouldn't any husband be conderned if his wife aborted a child over a missing limb or something similar without consultation.

Again, I reiterate that I am completely pro-choice. But I think we do ourselves a disservive when we pretend this is a medical procedure on par with getting a mole removed. I've helped friends go through this, and from what I can tell, it's a procedure that stays with a person psychologically for a lifetime.

This is also why I think it's a tragedy that Morning After Pills aren't advertised and aren't made available all over the place.

[kimchi]

50. Walt, please don't thow the baby out with the bath water.

People make poor choices all the time; and as hard as we try, we can't legislate that. Just because some people misuse the procedure doesn't mean it shouldn't be available. Same with welfare, or guns, or cars.

The woman/women who aborted for what most of us might consider "frivolous" reasons must bear the consequences for her actions. I see nothing wrong with society censuring her if her reasoning really is flawed...and it is already happening on this board. I bet if people around her know this, they are probably giving her a hard time, too. I try to leave individuals to their own karma.

[Pithlet]

160. So

are you now on board to make abortion illegal? You will support limiting my and other women's reproductive choices and control over my body because of a sensational article portraying a small percentage who exercise their rights for dubious reasons? This is assuming that these reasons cite in the article were REALLY the ones that these women had.

[outinforce]

167. "Dubious Reasons"??

Careful, there, Pithlet.

I don't think you want to suggest that these women had abortions for "dubious reasons".

I'm not too sure about this, but I would think that you would not want to judge any other woman's reason for having an abortion.

It seems to me that if being pro-choice truly means that someone supports the notion that there should be no limit on women's reproductive choices and over control of their own bodies, then there can be NO abortion that is ever dubious.

[Pithlet]

171. I think my point was clear n/t

[outinforce]

175. It Sure Was.

It was clear. To me, anyway.

It was clear to me that you were saying that you consider some women's choices about abortion to be "dubious".

Many of my pro-life friends say exactly the same thing.

[Pithlet]

178. It was clear to you

that doesn't mean that is what I actually said.

[sangh0]

191. outinforce has a habit

of clearly seeing meaning in other people's words. He can even see things you meant even though you've never meant them!!

[Pithlet]

193. Amazing, isn't it?

[outinforce]

228. Pot,

meet kettle.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

270. Why not be honest about what your debate opponents are saying?

Wouldn't it make for a more productive discussion if you actually responded to what people say instead of just making stuff up and pretending it's your opponent's position?

[outinforce]

279. Explain, Please?

First of all, I should let you know that I do not like referring to people with whom I am in a discussion as "opponents".

I do not consider people whose opinions differ from my own as being opponents of mine. I prefer to think of them as friends with different opinions. Opponents are people you want to "beat". Friends who have different opinions are people you can discuss things with.

I guess there must be some people here who consider me an opponent. That probably is due to some notion that since I do not share their opinion on this issue, we can't simply be friends who discuss what we believe. Pity.

But more to the point.

You suggest that I am not being honest about what other people are saying, and that I make stuff up and pretend it is what another person has said.

I confess I'm a little confused here, Feanorcurufinwe.

The post of mine that you were apparently objecting to was this one which I posted to pithlet:

"It Sure Was. It was clear. To me, anyway.

It was clear to me that you were saying that you consider some women's choices about abortion to be "dubious".

Many of my pro-life friends say exactly the same thing."

pithlet had earlier posted this:

"So are you now on board to make abortion illegal? You will support limiting my and other women's reproductive choices and control over my body because of a sensational article portraying a small percentage who exercise their rights for dubious reasons? This is assuming that these reasons cite in the article were REALLY the ones that these women had"

How is it that you feel that I was being dishonest here? Why would you suggest that I simply made up some stuff and prentend it was pithlet's?

Help me out here.

[Name removed]

288. Deleted message

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

[outinforce]

359. Why won't you point out where the I said what you claimed I said?

Why won't you support your own assertions?

[outinforce]

48. That Has Already Happened

"Suppose a doctor failed to identify that your child was going to be born with Downs' Syndrome. Would you have the right to sue for not knowing? Scary stuff."

Scary Stuff indeed.

The situation you describe actually took place here in the District of Columbia a few years ago.

A woman gave birth to a baby with Downs' Syndrome. She and her husband sued the OB/GYN because the OB/GYN had not performed every isngle test during pregnancy that could have identified the fetus as one that had Downs. The parents' argument was that the OB/GYN did not perform her duties, because, they argued, if she had, they would have known that the fetus had Downs, and they would have been able to abort the fetus. As a result of the OB/GYN's negligence, the parents argued, they had a live child with Downs.

[sangh0]

100. And how did the case end?

Was the decision for or against the OB/GYN?

Anyone can sue anyone else for any reason whatsoever. The important question is "Can they prevail in court?"

[Mandate My Ass]

52. The circle jerk has begun

this article was written to provoke exactly the
reaction I see here.

[outinforce]

54. Flamebait?

Don't you just love people who make absolutely no contribution to a thread --- but who ciriticize those who do?

Amazing.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

276. Your qualifications to judge

who is making a contribution have not been established.

[outinforce]

278. I Guess

I suppose you are right.

But I would still suggest that a post like this one:

"The circle jerk has begun. Tthis article was written to provoke exactly the reaction I see here"

makes almost no contribution to the topic underdiscussion on this thread.

Wouldn't you?

[sangh0]

295. No, I wouldn't

and I doubt that fean would either

[Redleg]

69. What reaction? Do you mean people discussing issues?

EOM

[bleedingheart]

53. People should decide for themselves what they want to do

some people are self-aware and know that they would not be able to handle a child with a defect. Now as to the woman who has aborted two feti for having the finger defect...I suspect that there is more to that story...perhaps she is using it as a reason not to have any ??? I don't know but it seems that there are other issues there.

I have a coworker who had all the tests done before her fetus was born because she had a brother with Downs. She told me that if her fetus was positive for Downs she would not have it because for 13 years she helped care for her severely handicapped brother and it was far too much for her. He had a very severe variant of Downs and had other issues including a heart problem which he was treated for but it ended up killing him at age 13.

So once again...I will not make someone's choice for them...they must walk their own paths.

[Killarney]

59. The future of this scares me

The idea of being able to abort based on gender, genes like a "gay" gene, eye color, hair color, etc. Perfect race anyone?

*shiver*

[bleedingheart]

60. PBS did a series on this very thing... girls were aborted

because they are not a desirable child to have...
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week440/cover.html

Abortion is not the problem, preferring one gender to another is the problem.

Technically if the people who select boys continue to do that...then guess what...they inadvertently solve the population problem and perhaps gender selection will die out since women will finally have a recognized value in society.

[shanti]

66. more cannon fodder

/sarcasm

[bleedingheart]

61. How many people did they have to interview to find the one who aborted

the fetus due to a finger defect????

I personally think that the NYTimes set this up so that they can paint women as foolish. "lookee here...these women are making decisions to abort babies over a bad finger!!!!! time to stop all women from thinking and making decisions about their bodies because this one woman here made a really weird choice"...

[outinforce]

71. It's Called, I Think

"the public's right to know".

Are you opposed to people having information?

[bleedingheart]

73. to be honest I don't really care and don't think I have a right to know

what happens in other people's lives unless it is illegal ...and in these cases it isn't illegal..

And as to your obtuse question..."Are you opposed to people having information?" No but I asked an honest question...how many cases did they have to sift through to find the cases that they knew would touch off a firestorm...can you answer that?

And by the way...you referenced an obgyn case above regarding Downs without a reference...

[outinforce]

75. To Be Honest, I Don''t Really Care....

You asked, "how many cases did they have to sift through to find the cases that they knew would touch off a firestorm"

To be honest, I don't really care.

And I'm not too sure I have any right to know how many cases the New York Times had to sift through.

Isn't that a pity?

And I know that my reference to the parents who sued an OB/GYN because the had a Downs child had no reference. It was a story I read in the Washington Post abpout 10 years or so ago.

It sent shivers up and down my spine then.

It still does. The child must be about 10 years old now. I wonder what thoughts would go through her mind if she were ever able to read the story I did ten years or so ago.

[bleedingheart]

81. Apparently you care enough to want to impose your morality

upon other people.

[outinforce]

83. LOL!

My morals!!

What a joke!

I have no morals.

What in the world made you think that I had any sort of morals at all??!!

Morals are for absolute suckers.

And if I don't have any morals, I certainly can't impose them on other people!

You have no clue at all about me.

[Forkboy]

105. Not much to add to that post

Says it all.

[Tina H]

363. I have a morality question

a hypothetical:

what if the "gay gene" could be detected in sperm, and new procedures could selectively somehow remove the "gay gene" sperms from the sample. The sample could then be used to inseminate.

would this be moral, ethical, etc? Should the hypothetical procedure be legal or illegal?

[redqueen]

62. This is why I'm not 100% pro-choice, and IMO

an example why the electorate will *forever* be split on this issue.

The right to Abortion for any reason and until delivery was never granted anyway. Roe v. Wade places limitations on the procedure, and it's reasonable to expect that as science improves, those limitations will be more clearly defined and made law.

[liberalpragmatist]

78. The article is EXCELLENT and Not Black-White

It's funny that you felt it made you question your 100% pro-choice position. I read it and seriously considered having a pro-life friend of mine read it because it showed what difficult positions so many people are in.

These people don't want to live with a child who is going to live a miserable life. I truly admire those who opt to have a child with Down Syndrome. Personally, I don't know if I would. These people have a tremendously difficult choice and are trying to balance out what is best for everybody in the family in the long-term and what's in the child's interest. In the same way that euthenasia is justified, in many cases of severe deformity, I think abortion is justified.

That said, I'm not extreme pro-choice. I think there have to be limits in the third trimester or after viability. I can't accept that idea that a baby that is one day from birth is not a living thing. It's not breathing, but it is getting oxygen. It has a nervous system, can feel pain, and is a conscious, moving thing. I believe that in the third term or after viability, whichever medical science and society decides is more appropriate should be restricted to cases where the life or health of the mother is in danger - which is what Roe v. Wade said too.

So I guess that in the instance of the woman aborting a fetus because she didn't want a child with 6 fingers or another who didn't want another girl, I have an ethical problem with that. Those abortions weren't in the third term but in the first or second. It's not killing a child in my mind, so it's not absolutely morall reprehensible. But it is deeply troubling and demonstrates a selfishness and a carelessness that is upsetting. It's like it fits in with wasteful Western practices, like throwing away everything with rapid pace and refusing to adjust or adapt to slightly different circumstances. I see no way that this could be made illegal without banning abortions for all the justified cases. These women did what was within the law, and there will always be those that abuse a law. The solution is for doctors to be more forceful in talking to patients like this - leaving the patient with the final choice, but strongly arguing against it, and hopefully for society to move towards a more thoughtful approach. In truth, most people are thoughtful in their approach. These are a few bad apples. It upsets me deeply, but we have to accept that there will be people who abuse laws and just try to work within the law, not change the law and cause more harm than good.

[outinforce]

82. Euthanasia?

"In the same way that euthenasia is justified, in many cases of severe deformity, I think abortion is justified."

Where, within the USA, is this sort of euthanasia permitted?

You mention that some people don't want to live with a child who is going to live a miserable life.

I'm not quite sure what a "miserable life" is. I think any person -- regardless of his or her physical condition -- that never knows what it is to be loved by another person lives a "miserable life".

But if, as you suggest, euthanasia is justified in cases of severe deformity, then it seem to me that any parent that felt that her child has a severe deformity, or will be doomed to a "miserable life", could simply have the poor unfortunate euthanized.

[theboss]

86. I would like a definition of "miserable life"

That seems to be a sliding scale. If you were going to be a paraplegic but a great scientist, is that a miserable life?

[outinforce]

88. Just As Some On This Thread

suggest that it is impossible to assess whether another person's decision to have an abortion is right or wrong, so I also say that it is impossible for me to say whether another person's life is or is not "miserable".

I do not accept that a person who lives in constant pain is, because of that pain, living a miserable life. Nor do I accept any notion that a disability -- however severe it might be -- renders a peron's life "miserable". Nor do I accept any notion that a person who is old or infirm is living a miserable life.

I look at people like Stephen Hawkings or Helen Keller or any of a number of other people who I know who have serious disabilities, but who contribute - if nothing else, joy -- to the lives of other people. Are their lives "miserable"? I don't think so. Because they are disabhled, should they never have been born? Not if you ask me.

The closest thing I can think of to what I would consider a miserable life is a life totally and utterly without love and without joy or happiness. That, for me, would constitute a miserable life.

Thhis is why it is so difficult for me to accept any notion that a "miserable life" is one that should never have been born.

[bleedingheart]

107. what about the life of the caretaker?

that is the issue. A woman who choses not to have a child with Downs does so because she may not want to take care of a special needs child.

That is why there are options. For the mother who won't abort but doesn't want the child...there is adoption while another may choose abortion.

Helen Keller and Stephen Hawking were both born healthy.

Helen Keller was rendered blind and deaf as a result of scarlet fever and her loving and wealthy family did everything they could to make her life better. Had she been the child of poor people she would have been placed in an institution and probably died young.

Stephen Hawking has Lou Gehrig's disease and if not for his fame and fortune and the fact that he lives in a country with socialized medicine...he would be dead. I had a coworker who had it and he died in three years.

[sangh0]

110. anti-abortionists and the gestational gestapo don't care about caregivers

only the fetus

[outinforce]

131. They Count, Too.

I certainly did not mean to imply or suggest that the lives of people who are parents or caregivers to disabled people do not count.

Of course they do.

What I was addressing was the question, "What is a miserable life?"

And all I was saying was that a life is not, in my view, rendered "miserable" siomply because a person has a disability -- no matter how severe the disability may be.

It does bother me when I hear someone suggest that a fetus should be aborted because it will live a life not worth living. I don't know how anyone could ever make such a judgment about another life.

That is not, however, what you said. You said that a woman may chose not to have a child with Downs because she does not want to take care of a special needs child. That would be her choice, and, if I understand you correctly, she would make the choice based upon her assessment of her own wants. Her choice would not be based on any judgment about the value of the life of a person with a disability -- only upon the fact that she does not want to care for someone with a disability.

[Cheswick2.0]

123. Do you people just make this stuff up?

That said, I'm not extreme pro-choice. I think there have to be limits in the third trimester or after viability.

That is the law now, there are limits on third trimester. You can't just have an abortion the day before birth because you feel like it...what's more, IT'S NOT HAPPENING BECAUSE WOMEN ARE NOT EVIL. Women who have abortions in the last few months are doing if for their life and health.

[outinforce]

138. Well,

Do you feel that a woman should have control over her own body, or don't you?

If you think that a woman should have control over her own body, then wouldn't you agree that a law that does not allow her to "just have an abortion the day before birth because she feels like it" would be denying her control, and would therefore be unjust?

[Walt Starr]

140. Down's syndrome is definitely an area where I couldn't

see the denial of an abortion.

An extra digit, myopia, cleft palate, club foot, or non-preferred sex are all reasons I cannot support anybody having the right to abort over.

Sorry, perhaps the struggle my wife and I have had with fertility (couple of miscarriages and inability to conceive since) paints the picture a little for me, but I would be GLAD to conceive a child with any of those perceived "defects"

[Tansy_Gold]

240. Then why not adopt?

My sister and her (second) husband went through a lot of time, effort, and expense to conceive, and they finally ended up with a healthy daughter. But there are several cases of Down syndrome in my brother-in-law's family, and because of my sister's age (36) and health at the time of conception, this was a serious concern.

They decided early in the pregnancy NOT to test for Down syndrome because they wanted the baby no matter what, but their physician persuaded them to do so. He told them that given the increased odds, they would be better off knowing ahead of time and being able to prepare in case the test proved positive, to make an informed decision to continue the pregnancy or to terminate.

Their daughter was born healthy after a moderately difficult pregnancy and a very difficult (cesarean) delivery.

They decided several months ago to try again. When AI failed after several attempts, the next step was in-virto. My sister is now three years older, her health is even more less than perfect. She agreed to limit an IV implantation to three embryos; she said she could handle triplets, but not more.

The whole family descended upon her -- was the notion of having one, two, or three-at-a-time more children so important that she would risk her own health and possibly her life? Was it worth it to her that her daughter and husband might lose her completely? Was it worth it to her that she might suffer a stroke during pregnancy or labor (she is at more-than-high risk) and be paralyzed or completely incapacitated, while her family had to take care of her children?

But she wanted more kids "of her own," even if they were less than perfect. Everyone in the family screamed "THEN ADOPT A SPECIAL NEEDS CHILD! There are plenty out there who need loving families."

Of course, she's never pursued the idea of adopting a less-than-perfect child. . . . . . .

Another poster further up this thread suggested that maybe we need to work on improving our society so we don't see six-fingered-hands and eyeglasses as "defects" worthy of aborting. Maybe we also need to improve our society so that "my own natural child" isn't such a badge of manhood/womanhood.

A lifelong friend of mine was adopted at the age of three because his father had died and his mother was unable to care for three small children. In his house, his adopted parents proudly hung a plaque that read, "Anybody can be a father, but it takes a really special man to be a Dad." With the lack of concern the pro-lifers show for the full personhood of the owners of uteri, maybe there ought also to be a sign that "Any uterus can be a mother, but it takes a really special woman to be a Mom."

Tansy Gold

[Walt Starr]

254. Actually, my wife and I are in the process of adopting a girl

from china.

There is a fairly high chance that she will have one of the "defects" I listed as well.

[Crowdance]

85. The lump of tissue v. baby argument is illustrative

of why this choice must rest with individual women. There are a wide variety of emotions and opinions about the nature of fetuses expressed on this thread, and that seems to be representative of our society.

I found the article very moving. I am glad to have never found myself in the position of evaluating whether I am able to raise a severely disabled child. My son is moderately disabled, and I know how challenging this is for our family. He needs a disproportionate share of the famiy's resources due to his disability; I can only imagine the impact of a profound disability on a family, and couldn't begin to impose my own decision on their lives.

[sangh0]

122. It's also an irrelevant part of the debate

regardless of whether or not a fetus is a baby or a lump of tissue, the issue rests on the rights of people, and according to the law, a fetus is NOT a person.

[Crowdance]

124. Absolutely!

I agree that the general principal of bodily integrity trumps every other argument here. I just wanted to point out that, even on a conversational level, reproductive choice prevails.

[sangh0]

127. "Bodily integrity" isn't the cricial issue either

A fetus has a body also. However, according to the law, the fetus is NOT a "person" and therefore it is not entitled to any rights.

[Crowdance]

156. Sangh0, there are a LOT of arguments in favor of choice

And if we're wise, we'll use them all. Different arguments will strike different folks as just, and we should encourage all such just thinking. A stable stool has more than one leg....

[sangh0]

194. I disagree

I think that the only reason why the different arguments strike different folks differently is because there is a lot of misinformation and confusion, like the idea that whether or not a fetus is a child or lump of tissue is an important difference wrt this issue

It may make a difference to how you FEEL about the issue, but your feelings will not change the law. Abortions are legal because the law does not consider a fetus to be a person entitled to rights.

[Crowdance]

244. So far, that's true

We need to focus not just on what makes it legal, but what makes it moral. "Legal" could change at any time.

[sangh0]

247. Again, I disagree

There is an all too common misunderstanding that the law is meant to somehow enforce morality. IMO, this is a dangerous idea.

The law is meant to protect our rights. Acts which are immoral but don't infringe on anybody else's rights should be legal. If I were to tell you that I was an astronoaut, it would be a lie but it would not, and should not, be an illegal act. If I tell you I was an astronaut and use that lie to convince you to invest in my (fictional) aerospace company and then ran off with the money, I would have not only lied, I would have lied for a material gain, which fraud, a criminal right.

In the latter case, I infringed on your property rights by (basically) stealing your money through fraud. That's criminal. But if I had merely lied, but not materially gained from the lie, then I am immoral, but no criminal.

Regardless of it's morality, abortion should be legal because it does not infringe on any person's rights.

[Crowdance]

371. You're tenacious, sangh0

I'm glad you're on my side (in a very general way, I concede). See you on the defense lines.

[Cheswick2.0]

128. Yes and according to many people posting on this thread

A fetus is more human than a woman and has more rights.

Thank you for your posts on this topic. You have more patience than I do. There are some people I find too hopeless to bother responding to.

[sangh0]

133. "A fetus is more human ..."

The trick is to refuse to play their game. Regardless of whether it's "human" or not, the law is clear. A fetus is not a person.

[outinforce]

151. Sigh

"There are some people I find too hopeless to bother responding to."

I know just how you feel.

[sangh0]

205. Me too

You have my sympathies

[outinforce]

161. Who?

"Yes and according to many people posting on this thread, a fetus is more human than a woman and has more rights."

Who here is saying that?

[outinforce]

147. The Law

"the issue rests on the rights of people, and according to the law, a fetus is NOT a person."

That's right.

And during the period of slavery here in the USA, that issue rested on the rights of people.

And according to the law back then, Black folks were NOT persons.

So the right (and the power) of the slaveowners to choose to buyu and sell those non-persons was secure.

[sangh0]

150. Wrong

Actually, the Constitution doesn't say one word about slaves not being people.

Try again.

[outinforce]

162. Why?

I never mentioned the Constitution.

Why would you say that I was wrong, and THEN say that "actually, the Constitution...yada yadda yaddda......"

You have once again taken something I did not say and suggested that I said it.

You are the resident expert at doing that.

Why do you keep doing that?

[sangh0]

206. You said according to the law, blacks were not people

According to the law, blacks were people. There was no basis in the law to declare that blacks were not people.

[outinforce]

230. Right.

I said the law.

Why you attempted to make it appear as though I had misquoted the US Constitution uis anybody's guess.

My guess is that since you and I disagree on some things, your preferred more of dealing with that is to distort what I say.

[sangha]

238. I suggest the possibility

that the Constitution may have something to do with these laws you speak of. Just a hunch

But you already knew that.

[outinforce]

246. Strawman

You seem to keep wanting to put words into my mouth.

I never mentioned the US Constitution.

You did. Not Me. You.

Why you seem to have this need to post words that I did not say, and then say that I said them, I have no idea. Perhaps it is because we disagree on this subject? If so, I consider iot to be a very odd way of expressing disagreement. But, to each his/her own.

And I have absolutely no idea of why you would ever say something like "But you already knew that.", regarding a "hunch" of your own.

When I want to know what someone else knows or thinks, I ask.

Often when I ask someone something, I receive in response something from you. Your response accuses me of asking the wrong question or implying in my question that I think the person my have said something that you feel s/he did not say.

But that is precisely why I ask -- I want to be sure that I understand what the other person is or is not saying. You confuse my asking of a question with what you apparently think is my making of assertions.

[sangh0]

248. Ye, I brought up the Constitution, not you

and it was so, so very perceptive of you to notice.

[outinforce]

249. Yes (Ye?), I Am Very Preceptive

I could, I think, give some lessons on how to be perceptive.

Part of being perceptive is admitting that you don't know something.

Like what another person may mean when he or she writes something on a discussion board such as DU.

Part of being perceptive is to ask questions designed to gain a fuller understanding of what another person's words meant.

Part of being perceptive means not attacking another person and demanding that s/he back up assertions s/he never made.

As I said, I could give lessons on how it is done.

Do you know anyone, sangh0, who might benefit from such lessons?

If so , please encourage him/her to get in touch with me, and I will be more than happy to share my experience on how to be perceptive.

[redqueen]

189. Where was it that blacks were defined as 3/5 human?

That was the loophole that allowed them to be denied rights, was it not?

[sangh0]

209. You tell me

but I bet if you find that clause, it will say NOTHING about slaves. The Framers of the Constitution went out of their way to avoid using the word "slaves" or "slavery"

[outinforce]

231. If I'm Not Mistaken

the framers also went out of their way not to put the word "abortion" in the Constitution, either.

Funny how that Constitutional Right was found, no?

[redqueen]

281. Deliberately Disingenuous?

You clearly are aware of the obfuscating that went on at the time (with respect to the word "slave" or "slavery"), so why pretend you aren't aware of the reality of the situation?

To aid in anyone else's research on the subject, this is referred to as the "Great Compromise" or the "Connecticut Compromise" or even sometimes as the "3/5ths Compromise".

*sigh*

[sangh0]

289. No, the Constitution does not say blacks are 3/5 of a person

And the difference between what the Constitution actually said, and what people think it said (and meant) is important because it was a historic act of voting disenfranchisement in our history.

Remember, back then women couldn't vote either. The Constitution doesn't say that they are not people, or only 3/5 of a person, or that they could be enslaved.

Disingenousness is used to hide the truth. I'm trying to get you to understand the truth.

[redqueen]

296. You're mistaking me for outinforce again

I never claimed it *was* in the Constitution.

I only stated that the method of counting slaves as 3/5ths of a human *was* used by our government, which it clearly was.

[sangh0]

306. NO, I knew it was you, but I though the "disingenous" was directed at me

because I didn't fully explain what the Constitution does say.

And yes, blacks were counted as 3/5 of a human, but it wasn't because they weren't considered human or people, or because the Constitution didn't consider them human or people. And it wasn't because "slavery was legal" as outinforce earlier, which was the claim that led to this part of the discussion.

According to the laws of this nation, slavery was never Constitutional and therefore, never legal.

[redqueen]

309. Legal vs. Ethical

Slavery existed, whether or not it was legal. And I think we can all agree that it was unethical, and that many people knew as much at the time, despite the overwhelming efforts made by our government to sanction it.

This tendency to cling to what's 'legal' while ignoring what's ethical is alarming.

[sangh0]

316. That is all true

but the point I wa trying to make, which seems to have gotten lost in the back and forth, is that slavery was NOT "legal", even back then, which is the opposite of what outinforce claimed above in an attempt to portray the laws that deny a fetus it's "rights" as being the same as the "laws" (which weren't lawful) which denied slaves their rights.

[redqueen]

322. Yeah I get you

BTW I love your new sig. ;)

[outinforce]

327. It Is Indeed

Isn't it a lovely new sig that sangh0 has?

[redqueen]

If you follow their posts at all

it's kind of a 'no shit' kind of thing. :)

[sangh0]

336. You think?

Some DUers have called my new sig "cute". Some have called it "nice", etc but it seems there's only one poster on DU who has found my sig line informative.

Everyone noticed we speak with the same exact tone, and managed to "connect the dots". Everyone, but one.

[outinforce]

347. Every One But One?

and who might that be?

Just a guess here, but it is possible that someone who sees two different (but similar) names, and who notices certain similarities in tone, etc., might still wonder why one person would post under two different screen names.

And, given what someone might reasonably assume to be a policy of a discussion board such as DU, someone might also assume that it would be just not quite correct for one person to have more than one account.

And someone might also wonder why, when asked, one person posting under two screen names did not simply say "I'm the same person" -- that is, until after a long time.

I have no idea who you are talking about when you say that there is only one poster on DU who was not able to connect the dots.

And you do understand, I trust, that I am talking here in hypotheticals.

Oh -- one more thing:

Why won't you point out where the I said what you claimed I said?

Why won't you support your assertions??

[outinforce]

360. Why won't you point out where the I said what you claimed I said?

Why won't you support your own assertions?

[outinforce]

321. She Is Totally Confused

Because I, too, never claimed it was in the Constitution.

[Pithlet]

164. I'm sorry, but I hope you reconsider

Because that is a dumb reason to change your stance. For one thing, there is no direct quote from any woman stating she decided to terminate because of an extra finger, but a doctor describing a former patient. How do we know exactly what went on in her mind, and what went into making that decision. A doctor isn't always on an intimate enough basis with his/her patient to make that judgment.

Let's take away a woman's right to choose, and force her to carry out a pregnancy against her wishes, because according to doctors, some women choose to exercise their right for the wrong reasons? Let's get rid of all cars because some people drive badly and kill people. Let's get rid of all music recordings because of the bad ones, like the group the Hansons. Let's get rid of all of our personal freedoms to make ourselves safer from the terrorists.

[bleedingheart]

168. the doctor could have even made the story up...

so you never know.

[outinforce]

There Is a River In Egypt....

It's called Denial.

[Pithlet]

183. Because doctors NEVER lie

That place called Denial must be a happy one for you.

[outinforce]

179. There Is a River In Egypt....

It's called Denial.

[Walt Starr]

257. I'm sorry, but my stance has changed.

I am no longer 100% pro-choice regardless. I now see many instances where the state has a compelling insterest in limiting abortion.

[outinforce]

259. Be Prepared, Walt Starr

to be called the most vile of names by people who disagree with your reasonable position.

Comes with the territory.

[Walt Starr]

260. I'm sorry if my new position offends people

I'm still pro-choice, however, I now believe there are times when abortions imply should not be allowed.

I also believe that's the majority position on abortion.

[redqueen]

275. Yeah, it may be the majority position

but the Democratic Party will be damned to hell before they'll admit it.

Real productive stance, there.

[Iris]

286. Just because its a "majority position" doesn't make it right.

People who would have abortions for frivolous reasons like this shouldn't be allowed to be parents at all, but who's going to make that call?

Furthermore, if a government can force a woman to have a child, it can force her not to have children as well. Do we really want to have a government that dictates these kinds of choices?

[redqueen]

297. I didn't say it did

I was just trying to point out how stupid and self-defeating a rigid defense of abortion rights with no regard to the opinions of the majority of people in this country is, especially in an election year.

[Iris]

298. So we should be willing to force women to have babies

just because this is an election year?

[redqueen]

302. no... this is the kind of ridiculousness that outinforce is flamed for

but since their opinion is in the minority, it goes mostly unchecked from the other side of the debate.

What I said was stupid was, "a rigid defense of abortion rights with no regard to the opinions of the majority of people in this country".

To spell it out - that means that the RHETORIC is self-defeating.

Is it really so much to expect Democrats who recognize the value of our alleged 'big tent' to tone down the 'lump of cells' comments?

:eyes:

[sangh0]

308. You are absolutely right about that

which is why I believe the one and only argument we should be using to defend abortion is the argument that laws are NOT meant to enforce morality - Laws are meant to protect our rights.

If I told you I was an astronaut, I would be lying, which is immoral, but I would not be committing a crime. "Immoral" and "criminal" are NOT synonyms. Immoral acts are crimes ONLY IF the immoral act infringes on some other person's rights.

[DoNotRefill]

315. Yeah, it is too much to expect. The "big tent" doesn't include fascists.

and that's what people who try to strip the people of their civil liberties and constitutional rights are.....FASCISTS.

[redqueen]

324. Are you deliberately ignoring what is being said here?

There are people who are pro-choice who are frankly repulsed by sentiments like 'my wife will have my baby in a few weeks, but to me it's nothing more than just a lump of tissue and not a real person'. People who use rhetoric like that in their rabid defense of abortion rights... even use it with people who agree with them, but don't think it's such a cut and dry issue, seem to me to be making the fight to take this country back harder.

Using such reckless and sickening rhetoric at a time like this alienates not only those who already vote with the other side for this reason alone, it also seems to alienate those who are voting Democratic NOW! That can't be your goal, so why do it?

What other purpose could there by in telling people who disagree with *you*, but not with the necessity for abortion, that even if they are pro-choice, that their mild disagreement with your opinions makes them fascist?

[DoNotRefill]

332. It's incredibly simple.

If you adopt the arguments of pro-lifers, you're allowing THEM to control the debate, and they WILL eventually win.

By saying a fetus is a child, you're undermining the FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL LIBERTIES OF WOMEN. You are, quite literally, reducing women to the status of living incubators. That's fascistic.

The pro-life ideals (that a fetus is really a child) are basically anathema to true progressives, just as slavery based upon skin color is anathema to progressives. I'm sure there are a handful of so-called "progressives" who are pro-life (and therefore support gender-based slavery), but I'm questioning their liberal credentials, just as I'd question the credentials of a so-called "progressive" who supported skintone-based slavery.

[redqueen]

339. No, it's not, as is quite obvious

to anyone who cares to take a look around them at their neighbors.

You go right ahead and keep on believing that a screaming barrage of vulgar pro-choice slogans will protect the right to abortion.

IMO, however, it's handing ammo to the other side, and will help THEM to restrict access faster than a million Democrats expressing their personal reservations about backing abortion in the 5th month or later.

[DoNotRefill]

342. and I should care about the opinion of a pro-lifer because....

?????

[redqueen]

350. Because pro-choicers share those opinions

and we're losing votes because of it.

[sangh0]

343. I hope I'm not being too repetitive

but IMO this debate here you're having demonstrates why talk about the morality of abortion is a poor way to defend abortion rights.

If you argue that laws are meant to protect rights, but not enforce morality, you can acknowledge the morality of others (you can say "Yes, I do think abortion is wrong under those circumstances, but it shouldn't be illegal") while arguing that the morality of it is irrelevant, and that the critical issue here is one of rights, and abortion does not infringe on any person's rights.

Lying is immoral, but it's not illegal.

[redqueen]

352. No not at all

That point needs repeating, actually.

However, let me ask you this... obviously those on this thread who are using the more offensive rhetoric are not using morality as a reason to protect the right to abort. Clearly they are using the 'rights' angle. However, I still see that their technique is lacking, because IMHO it is undeniably causing the Democratic party to *lose* support among moderate pro-choicers. So do you think that the hardcore '9-month-old fetus is a lump of tissue' type arguments are helpful, or harmful, to the cause of protecting a woman's right to abort?

[outinforce]

356. Why won't you point out where the I said what you claimed I said?

Why won't you support your own assertions?

[Heyo]

311. Hang on a sec.....

Now I am pro-choice, first off.. let's get that straight...

But this terminology that's being used up and down the thread.. "force women to have babies"..

... as if they were held down by some agents and artificially inseminated.

Aside from rape cases, pregnancy is brought on by sex engaged in by the mother without protection..

The question is whether or not a medical procedure should be legal which will terminate the pregnancy and circumvent the consequences of that action.

And, for what it's worth, think it should be legal in earlier trimesters, (first and maybe part of second, I don't know enough about fetal development) the closer it gets to term, the less I feel abortion is okay... and I am against partial birth abortions.. at that point, I have to ask.. why not just give it up for adoption?.. I'm a guy, so I don't want to pretend to understand what women go through, but it has to be logical to say if you plan to abort do so as soon as possible so it IS just tissue, as most pro-choicers argue, including me. I hate to say it but if you have an abortion at 7 1/2 months because all of a sudden you 'don't feel like it,' that is morally reprehensible.

Heyo

[sangh0]

329. "that is morally reprehensible"

So do you think that any and ALL immoral acts should be criminalized?

[redqueen]

330. They're pro-choice

lol... see what I mean?

[Heyo]

335. Of course not....

Which post is it that you are responding to?

moral and legal or 2 very different things... that point cannot be stressed enough.

Heyo

[sangh0]

337. "moral and legal or 2 very different things... "

Thank you. I agree, the point cannot be stressed enough, which is why I stressed it to you, even though it seemed as you agreed. It never hurts to repeat this point and make it explicit.

[Heyo]

353. right on..

:toast:

Heyo

[outinforce]

355. Why won't you point out where the I said what you claimed I said?

Why won't you support your own assertions?

[outinforce]

357. Why won't you point out where the I said what you claimed I said?

Why won't you support your own assertions?

[outinforce]

361. Why won't you point out where the I said what you claimed I said?

Why won't you support your own assertions?

[Cheswick2.0]

365. Ha ha ha.... I knew someone would make the "you made your bed" agument

Women have sex so they should just live with being pregnant when they don't want to be.....because of course in your world birth control is 100% effective.


In addition there is no such thing as partial birth abortion. It is not a medical term. Women who abort at 7 or 8 months do not do it just because they feel like it. That is not legal.

Why are you talking about something that doesn't happen?

Let me tell you about one case of where a woman had an abortion between 25 and 30 weeks so that you can understand who is doing this and why.

One woman who waited for many years to get pregnant and who finally paid lots of money to a fertility specialist. She finally got pregnant in her early forties. As she was still very healthy and in good shape she thought this was a safe time for her to be pregnant and she was right. She had a very easy time being pregnant. Then she had testing (because she was older and it was suggested). They found that her fetus had no brain, only a brain stem. The baby would have died almost immediately at birth and what is more might very well die in the womb causing health problems for the woman.

To force this woman to continue this pregnancy would have forced her both to risk her health and to mourn for weeks as her due date approached. So she had an abortion at 30 weeks.

The next case was a woman who was having complications and pain with her pregnancy. It was discovered at about 23 weeks that the fetus had severe Hydroencephaly and Spinal bifida. To continue the pregnancy meant that she would deliver a child with severe retardation and physical deformity. She decided to abort and "partial birth abortion" was the best choice for her health. Forcing her to labor and deliver a fetus with a extremely enlarged head seems cruel doesn't it? Forcing her to have a Ceasarean based on the fact that the fetus had a chance at viability would be the only other choice and seems cruely pointless.

These are the women getting late term abortions. All the rest of your imaginary cases are a product of right wing lies that you are buying.
But I am sure your judgement is much better than the judgement of the women involved and that of their doctors.

[DoNotRefill]

313. If you don't defend rights...

they go away. If you defend only parts of rights, they become privileges, and that's unacceptable.


I fucking HATE people who work to abridge our constitutional rights. It doesn't matter which right they're working to tear down. So-called "progressives" who work to destroy our constitutional rights/civil liberties are not really progressives, they're well-masked fascists. At least with the Right Wing, they pretty much ADMIT that they're fascists, so at least they're not hypocrites.

[redqueen]

328. No one is saying to stop defending them

it is the vulgar rhetoric which is used to defend them which is the issue to me. It helps to keep the issue clouded by encouraging a reactionary response from those who are less amenable to vulgarity.

Is that any clearer?

You can curse and tell me how much you hate the pro-life movement. That really isn't germane to this conversation, though, is it? Is anyone here on this thread 'work(ing) to abridge our constitutional rights'?

[DoNotRefill]

338. ROTFLMAO!!! If you're NOT working to abridge a woman's right....

to reproductive freedom, WTF ARE you doing?

Once you turn a fetus into a child, abortion becomes murder.

You're working to turn a fetus into a child. Your position, if recognized by the courts, will turn women into slaves once they become pregnant. That is UNACCEPTABLE. CATEGORICALLY.

I've met people with the same position as you have....they were up on charges of setting fire to a female reproductive services clinic. They went "bye-bye", and will get out in about 23 years. Unfortunately, I didn't get to sentence them, I just dealt with them in a preliminary hearing.

[redqueen]

346. Are you on drugs?

Do you really think I posess some magical power to somehow transform a 'fetus' into a 'child'? ROTFLMAO indeed. :eyes:

I'm not working towards such a patently ridiculous 'goal'. My only goal is to promote understanding between the 'pro-choice' and 'pro-choice-but-not-quite-so-pro-choice-as-the-rabidly-pro-choice' camps. That being the case, there is no way on God's green earth that I could be helping to turn women into 'slaves'.

You seem to want so desperately to cling to the notion that a fetus is just a fetus and no more - regardless of gestational age - and therefore undeserving of any kind of protection whatsoever, that you're apparently willing to lose votes to Republicans in order to lobby for your opinion to be the only acceptable one in the party.

I have some bad news for you... it won't work. The law already explicitly permits the limitation of abortion rights according to the gestational age of the fetus. If you believe that current law will be relaxed to be *more* permissible, you're in for some seriously nasty shocks over the next decade or so.

[Heyo]

354. I think I fall into the..

'pro-choice-but-not-quite-so-pro-choice-as-the-rabidly-pro-choice' you describe... not like the militant abortionists, who, to me, seem like they are not so much pro-choice, as they are pro-abortion itself...

When they stuck their nose in the Laci Peterson situation, that ticked me off and was the last straw. I can't say I lost respect for them, because I had none to begin with. But just as you say, they seem so hell-bent on making sure that an unborn child is NEVER considered anything even remotely human, and abortion is legal and can be done on a whim right up until the very second the entire head is out of the womb. I have news for those people. That kid could have lived in it's own.. it had a name.. it had a crib waiting for him when he got home.. it wasn't a piece of tissue.. it was a baby. And 2 counts of murder is is the proper charge.

Heyo

[Cheswick2.0]

366. militant abortionists?

WTF?

Come on, where do you get these ideas....as if I didn;t know.

[Cheswick2.0]

364. Walt, you know I love you more than my luggage

but you change your mind a lot. Maybe you will consider the arguments of Pithlet and several other people here, because they are making a lot of sense.

[PA Democrat]

233. When pregnant with my second child I did not know she would have autism,

so I had no choice to make. Thirteen years later, my husband and I could not imagine life without our sweet and precious daughter. She is a source of profound joy but also a source of profound mental and physical pain. Raising a child with a severe disability takes an enormous toll on every member of the family, and our family is fortunate, because I know many families who have a much more difficult struggle.

That said, I cannot judge other people for the decisions that they make. What I have found is that many of the most profoundly pro-life people I have met, are the first to state, "God never gives you more than we can handle." And then they walk away with their "perfect" children without ever considering how they might help a family struggling to raise a severely disabled child.

Sadly, I have met many families who have indeed been given more than they can handle (while as funding for services for the disabled are being cut). Should these mothers have aborted their children? It is not my choice to make, nor is it my place to judge.

[Name removed]

241. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

245. Deleted message

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

[Carolina]

262. There are so many conditions

that we can now detect prenatally, many of them serious, life-altering and sometimes associated with early death (in infancy for example with Edward's Syndrome or trisomy 18). Others less so. But if you say it's OK to proceed with elective termination for some conditions revealed by amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling but not for others, it opens up a Pandora's box of where do you draw the line and who decides.

No matter how we look at it, abortion is a sticky wicket that should remain a matter of choice for the woman (first and foremost), her partner and her MD.

BTW: I am leery of the NYT and the timing of this article. Many of the facts of the article are not NEW. But abortion is a volatile, wedge issue for much of the electorate. Hmmmmmm

[Carson]

263. Frightening article

I think convenience abortions are morally reprehensible. To me, the argument of whether a fetus is a child is neglible. It is a human life regardless of what stage of developement. You terminate a pregnancy, you end a human life.

That being said, I am pro-choice but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm pro-abortion.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

284. I'm having trouble understanding your position.

You say you are 'pro-choice' and you also say 'convenience abortions are morally reprehensible'


:wtf:


Wtf is a 'convenience abortion' ???


Doesn't being 'pro-choice' mean that the woman gets to choose for herself - and your moral judgements about her choice are irrelevant?

[Carson]

300. My moral compass

I merely stated MY opinion and feelings. I feel a fetus is a human life and *I* would be uncomfortable terminating that life for trivial (i.e. such cases as mentioned in the article) reasons.

What someone else chooses to do is not my business. Everyone has to live with his/her own conscience.

I'm pro-choice in that I believe it's a woman's right to choose, but just don't expect me to agree with another's choice.

Surely it's not a law that I must wholeheartedly support that choice?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

314. That is a consistent position

and the only one that I could conceive of, based on your original post. Thank you for the clarification.


Surely it's not a law that I must wholeheartedly support that choice? I didn't say, nor did I mean to imply, that there was any obligation on you to support anything.



But I still gotta ask: Wtf is a 'convenience abortion' ???

[redqueen]

319. Well done, Carson!

This is so much the issue here in this thread... thanks for nailing it down.

"Surely it's not a law that I must wholeheartedly support that choice?"

You would think not, right?

This kind of over-the-top zealousness in the defense of abortion rights is what I think is definitely alienating those who are more pro-life than pro-choice. We've already seen a loss of votes to the Republicans from that camp.

However, your comment here and others on this thread indicate that it is also most likely alienating even those who are clearly supportive of abortion rights even if they have personal reservations about abortion!

Is there a 'tearing my hair out' smiley anywhere?

[Cheswick2.0]

368. I don't think anyone has asked you to agree or support any one's abortion

But I will ask you not to make statements about convenience abortion when it is really and ugly and judgemental thing to say.

[XanaDUer]

369. I have been following this discussion for a couple of days

and I have to agree with you Cheswick. I did not see hatred for gays in your posts. What I DID read was a woman asking whether or not she had control over her body when it came to pregnancy, whether someone else felt that that reason was reprehensible, trivial, or whatever.

Because, either the woman has a right to end a pregnancy, or not.

Some may view it as a convenience abortion, but who gets to decide what is and is not a good reason for an abortion, above and beyond the woman whose body the fetus is in?

[Cheswick2.0]

367. I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion except the chinese

who are in the middle of a population crisis. Can you blame them?


I have no idea what a convenience abortion is. Women have abortions for many reasons and no abortion is convenient.

[Deja Q]

370. Disgusting. Morally disgusting. On the other hand...

those babies won't go through the hell that is about to happen to the civilized world.

[Moderator]

372. Locking

too long and too full of Personal Attacks's