I think abortion is wrong, but...

[timdoodle]

But I don't believe it should be illegal, and I think a woman should have a right to choose. Does that make me a bad liberal? I had an argument with another DU member in person about this, and she thought I was. Any input appreciated.

[slinkerwink]

1. no, it doesn't. You can be opposed to abortion personally

and still say that you are opposed to banning it for other women because it's really not your place to decide.

[Caution]

2. The whole point is supporting a woman's right to choose

It's her body, therefore her choice. This doesnt make you a bad person or any less liberal.

[Worst Username Ever]

3. I am on the same page as you

But unlike pro-lifers, I understand that I choose the beliefs I have... hence... choice.

[trumad]

4. Hey ..A lot of folks think it's wrong

that's fine... But the majority think it's a womens right to choose. I for one think that men have no right at all to tell a woman what to do with her body. It's a womens issue..Period!

[LiberalVoice]

5. I don't think it makes you any less of a Liberal.

I honestly think the same way. Althought I don't know very much about the specific's of abortion or the growth of the human fetus. A woman's body is a womans body and if we start telling them what they can and cannot do with it were in for a load of trouble.

[mstrsplinter326]

6. I agree with you

I think it is irresponsible to have sex without being willing to face the consequences.

That being said, there are too many circumstances in which abortion is needed, and as a man I would NEVER presume to choose for someone else, not even if it were my child. But I WOULD be willing face the consequences (and joys) if were to become a father, if the woman involved wanted to keep the kid.

[jeff30997]

13. Hey! it's your 500th post!!! Congratulation!!!

:party: :toast: :toast: :party:

[mstrsplinter326]

Thanks, i was in such a posting flurry

I didn't even notice.

WHOOO!!! Half way to the point where they make me donate or leave!

[mstrsplinter326]

17. oops

oops

[movonne]

7. You have the right to believe whatever you want , as long as you

don't push it on others. You are not a bad liberal, you are a liberal in every sense.

[Cheswick2.0]

8. I doubt anyone told you that you were a bad liberal for being pro-choice

Is there more to this story?

[timdoodle]

12. Nothing more to the story

I have just been thinking about it a lot; I think I touched off a nerve with her about the "correctness" of the choice, not the right to make it. I know this is an explosive issue, so I appreciate everyone's candor.

[jeff30997]

9. Personaly i think abortion is ok but...

If you have a problem with abortion but you think a woman should have a right to choose and you don't believe it should be illegal,i don't see any problem here!

[timdoodle]

10. Wow, that was fast

Thanks everyone for the input, I am sure there is more to come. I feel much better now. Rock on Liberals, I am becoming more and more comfortable with the title.

[Wickerman]

11. Actually, I think it demonstrates that you might just have a brain

and know how to use it.

I struggled with abortion in an early time of life until I realized that the issue was one of choice. I had no right to dictate what another person does with their body - and as a male I was even further eliminated as a decision maker.

You can find abortion wrong, but that you can remove yourself and your beliefs far enough from the equation to be accepting of other perspectives make you, in actuality, a progressive. Congrats!

[timdoodle]

14. Thanks

That was what I needed to hear.

[Democracy Died 2004]

15. Man if only

shrubs mom believed in abortion.

[jeff30997]

18. ROTFL!!!

Bwaaahahahahahahhh!Good one !!!

[Tosca]

47. Believe it or not...

Babs is pro-choice. Go figure.

[mopinko]

154. comes from

haivng a son like shrub.

[seabeyond]

16. tim, i conclude this myself, a 42 yr old woman, shift in view

yes. now i can say i do think abortion creates pain that has to be healed. i do not think it is healthy, ergo, i dont think it is the answer.

and, i dont have the right to tell another adn decide which ones can and cannot do

as our constitution states, we dont have the right to make illegal. and isnt the answer anyway. why implement a solution we know wont work

liberal conservative not relevent. and no one dictates what i think. tis mine, wink

[seabeyond]

27. this is why i can clearly say to religious right friends

there is a greater responsibility here than the fetus we care and dont want to see lost.

this is how we have to vote democrat. though on the surface our caring would lead us to believe we needed to be anti abortion, ergo support right. but that is a flip flop non truth. the purity is in taking care of the child who will get preg at 13, yet.......if we arent going to be parents then we cannot tell our children they are going to suffer the most extreme of a life time, having a child when we know they cannot do it. how absurd

[Az]

19. Not at all, the big tent has many entrances

It is not expected that all liberals are in lock step or believe the same things for the same reasons. I am an atheist. I view the world different than a theist. Yet we are able to arrive at similar views on many issues. It is the recognition of varying views and the realisation that we must all find a path to get along that seems to define a liberal.

Conservatives deem a singular path as the only valid one. Their notion of compassionate conservatism simply reiterates this notion. They are going to give compassion as they define it not necissarily as the recipient or reality defines it. The Inquisition is a perfect example of compassionate conservatism in action. They were expressin compassion for the victims eternal soul by torturing their bodies. See... compassion.

[Kid_A]

20. We have to stop letting the other side define the terms

They label us as being pro-abortion when we're actually pro-choice. We can support a woman's right to choose what she does with her body, but also advocate for adoption as an alternative. I think a majority of people who call themselves "pro-choice" are more "pro-life" than a lot of the pro-lifers. As liberals, we understand that being "pro-life" also means opposing war and the death penalty. I've lost track of how many "pro-life" people I've talked to support capital punishment. And the scary thing is that not a single one sees a double standard there.

[Bluzmann57]

21. First of all, welcome to DU

where(mostly) the free flow of intelligent ideas is welcomed, with the possibility of me being the exception. Anyway, I too am opposed to abortion, and would not pay for a woman to have one if she were carrying my child. This is an issue with which I have struggled and finally figured that I have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body, just as a woman has no right to tell me what to do with mine. Just my two cents worth.

[timdoodle]

22. Once again, thanks

I know I am fairly new to DU, but I am once again impressed with all of your thoughts. Regards.

[DoverFrank]

23. I will say this

My wife and I went through one a few years ago, before we were married. Not fun at all and not the right choice for us. I honestly never thought about it until then, not in any serious way. Since we have had our first child, we will never do it again. It just about broke my wife emotionally for a year or so afterwards and I cant help but relive that whole ordeal and wonder what if. Its no longer an issue of choice for us.

[Beware the Beast Man]

24. Such a sticky issue

I believe in the sanctity of life...all life, not just the unborn. I am not anti-choice, however. As a Catholic, I am bothered by the recent politicizing of the Church over the abortion issue. It seems that, for some, social justice, this ongoing war, and the death penalty have taken a backseat to abortion and gay marriage. I cannot make these issues my sole issues for voting in November. Besides, where is the outcry over pro-war and pro-death penalty Catholics (the Church only allows the death penalty in extreme cases, a last line of defense of sorts).

Anyway, no, you are not alone.

[THUNDER HANDS]

25. is there a point?

You're a man, you can't have an abortion anyway. Why bother worrying about it?

[timdoodle]

30. You make a good point

But there is a point. I am unmarried, and this society we live in does not necessarily look highly on out of wedlock babies (at least in my community). The conversation came up when we found out our friend was pregnant and her father is a powerful man. The conversation deteriorated from there into the current issue.

[jeff30997]

31. Whaaaaaaaaaaat?

So men don't care?What a sectarian view.

[THUNDER HANDS]

36. its not that men don't care

It's just that men don't (or at least shouldn't) have a say.

If my g/f got pregnant, it would be 100% her choice what she wants to do. I could offer counsel, or advice but ultimately the decision lies with her.

Whether I'm 100% pro choice or 100% pro life has no bearing. Unless I wanted to be an abusive asshole and either make her carry the baby to term or terminate it.

[outinforce]

60. And Your Views On Child Abuse Are.....?

I will never ever be a parent.

But I do have some rather strong views about the laws and our country's policies regarding parents who abuse their children.

I hope you are not saying that only parents have any real opinion and voice when it comes to the laws covering child abuse.

I think I hear you saying that as a man, I should have no say regarding a specific woman's decision to abort.

OK, but what about my right as a citizen of this country to hold to certain beliefs and to attempt to change the laws or policies of this country?

[Lisa0825]

26. I think abortion is not a good thing, but sometimes it is the best of

several difficult options.

[Beware the Beast Man]

28. I also wanted to add that

You'll find here on DU that no one is expected to tow a party line. Among us libs here we have pro-lifers, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Hindus, Budhists, athiests, pro-gun, anti-gun, meat-eating, vegetarian, vegan, pro-war, pro-defense, anti-war, etc etc. The best thing I have noticed with DU is you can state your opinions and not expect to be banished, granted you are respectful to others. Welcome aboard!

[jeff30997]

29. Here in Canada...

Abortion is perfectly legal since 1988 and there is almost nobody who contest that except a handfull of rednecks.And yesterday we defeated the conservatives! Now it's your turn Americans! Do it! Flush those bastards!!!

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. And yesterday we defeated the conservatives! Now it's your turn Americans!

YAY!!! That IS great news! We are going to follow suit come November! The idiot-in-chief is going back to Crawford, Texas to chop some cedar! KUDOS to Canada! :bounce::bounce:

[beyurslf]

32. Personal views are not the ones you think should be laws or

legislated. I know many people who consider abortion or gay marriage "wrong" but don't want to out law that. Heck, I am the campaign manager for someone who feels that way--and I am gay. The difference is that she recognizes these are personal religous beliefs that she holds and does not believe that she should force these into the legislature. I can respect that even if we personally disagree.

[cap]

33. I think it is a grey area...

I dont think that all abortions are completely moral but I think that all the circumstances for having an abortion are best known by the woman, the doctor, and the significant other. At the end of the day, it is the woman who bears the heaviest burden and the consequences of her decision. Let God sort it all out.

[noonwitch]

35. I think that it makes you the average pro choice american

There are very few scenarios I can think of in which I would want to have a pregnancy terminated. One is rape and one is knowing that having carrying the pregnancy would kill me-I'm not a woman on a soap opera who'd beg for the doctors to let me die and my baby live.

But I don't think abortion should be illegal.

[Marymarg]

37. Abortion is an awful thing

Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world and terrible things happen. Sometimes abortion, is the lesser of two very bad choices.

Some people who are very anti-abortion make exceptions in the cases of rape and incest. If one truly believes that abortion is killing a baby, then how to justify it in any case? I have never understood this position.

It is such a touch decision, I also do not understand why anyone want to make such a decision for someone else.

Personally, I have had this awful experience. It was the hardest thing I ever had to do, truly a personal tragedy that I will never "get over." Do I regret it? Yes and no. I certainly regret that circumstances were such that I felt it was the better of two bad options. But I know that I made the best decision at the time, based on my circumstances.

It is such a serious choice and is ultimately the decision of the woman.

[outinforce]

38. It May Depend A Great Deal Upon....

My own view on this very sensitive subject is that one of the things that pro-choice folks do not agree on is the issue of whether or not there is some point at which an abortion should be illegal or restricted.

Most folks who consider themselves pro-choice, it seems to me, have no difficulty with saying that abortions early in pregnancy should not be illegal.

There are, I think, a great number of folks who consider themselves to be "100% pro-choice" who would have serious problems supporting laws that might allow the abortion of a fetus at nine-months gestation.

And there are, I think, even fewer folks who consider themselves pro-choice who would support a change in the laws to define "personhood" as occuring not at birth, but instead at the acquisition of the ability to use language.

Where you stand upon that spectrum is in many ways dependent upon your view of what consitutes that which we as a society ought to honor and respect and make every effort to preserve -- even if it means denying some the opportunity to "choose" the destruction of something.

It may be that you expressed a sentiment to the other DU member that caused her to think that you would restrict abortion earlier in the process from conception to acquisition of langauge than she would have.

[RetroLounge]

39. Uhm, that would make you Pro-Choice.

right?

RL

[3rdParty]

40. I wouldn't own a slave but I would not force my beliefs upon someone else

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

41. Care to elaborate on that one? From what I recall, a slave is viable

outside the womb...a zygot or embryo isn't

[3rdParty]

42. what does viable mean?

[sangh0]

46. Let's just say

"viable" is not what I'd call your argument

[outinforce]

51. What' "Viability" Got To Do With Anything?

What i the world does "viability" have to do with anything, anyway?

We all do know (don't we?) that our law protects persons.

Not "viable" fetuses.

Because fetuses -- not matter how "viable" -- are not legally persons.

There are some folks, I suppose, who will argue that "viable" fetuses should enjoy the protection of law that persons enjoy, but that would make "viable" fetuses persons, now wouldn't it?

For some reason, the law seems to embody the notion that "personhood" is acquired at birth.

But, really now, isn't that just as ridiculous as saying that a "viable fetus" is a person?

For me, a person is someone who possesses the ability to communicate her/her thoughts using the basics of a language.

Before that point, it is still a potential person. But absent that ability, I do not understand why anyone would call it a person.

[Nederland]

57. Think about what you just said

For me, a person is someone who possesses the ability to communicate her/her thoughts using the basics of a language.

By this measure, an infant doesn't become a 'person' until well after birth. Is that really what you intended to say?

[outinforce]

64. Yep.

That's exactly what I intended to say.

Anyone who disagrees with that statement is, in my opinion, a member of the gestational gestapo.

Because anyone who disagrees with that is, I feel, trying to force their own view of "personhood" -- a view which is, no doubt, religious in its nature -- that "personhood" occurs at birth.

People can certainly believe that personhood occurs at birth. People can also believe that personhood occurs at conception.

But when people use those believes as part of an endeavor to restrict choice -- or to not allow choice to be expanded, then I get really angry.

Because few things annow me more than people who do not favor choice -- or who wish to use their beliefs to keep choice limited.

[Donkeyboy75]

70. But following your argument to the extreme limit,

it could be said that you support the right to kill 2 month old babies, as they cannot communicate using the basics of language.

That is blurring the line between choice and murder, IMO.

[Susang]

77. Donkeyboy

Before you argue this, read this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1854556

[outinforce]

80. Kill? Babies?

WHy is it that everytime I advance the cause of giving parents the right to choose, someone jumps in and falsely accuses me of advocating killing babies?

I had so hoped that we could have a discussion about choice without one side calling the other "baby killers".

You do know, don't you?, that there are some folks who call fetuses "unborn babies".

But calling them that does not mean that they are babies. It just gives people with an anti-choice agenda the opportunity to tar their opponents as being "baby killers" or as folks who "support the right to kill babies".

For me, it ain't a baby if it ain't a person (I think most pro-choice folks would agree with me here).

And it ain't a person if it can't use language.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[outinforce]

97. Forty Years Ago....

In the United States, in the 1960's, before Roe v. Wade, the majority of people referred to "babies" or "children" when they talked about things in the womb.

In fact, there is still some residual of that usage left in the language.

People talk about being pregnant "with their first child". Or, "Gee, I just felt the baby kick". Things like that.

Of course, we now know (don't we?) that such talk of "babies" and "children" in the womb is just so much nonsense. Women are pregnant -- not with babies -- but with zygotes. Or fetuses. Or parasites.

Right?

And why do we choose to call fetuses fetuses and not babies?

I'm not too terribly sure why.

You presume to lecture me about my use of the language and to demand that I use the language in a manner that conforms with how most people use it.

Sorry, no can do.

Doing so would compel me to buy into the anti-choice mindset of those who, for some reason they are unable to clearly articulate, wish to deny to extend to prospective parents the right to choose, aftetr the fetus leaves the womb, whether to become actual parents or not.

If I were to use the language as you suggest, people could, I think, call me a "babykiller".

That is a typical tactict of the anti-choice getational gestapo -- get the person who is advocating choice to admit that the thing tha tis destroyed is "really" a baby, then procede to discredit the pro-choice argument by saying that the choice kills a baby.

Sorry, but I ain't going there.

[Donkeyboy75]

99. If you didn't use language in the manner that most people do,

nobody could understand you. If you suddenly decided that you thought the word "walk" should actually refer to remaining buoyant in water by doing freestyle, then you'd have one hell of a time communicating. In fact, one could argue that you couldn't communicate using language at all...

YOU don't get to set the rules for language, and you can't expect everyone to change their definition when speaking to you. These things are decided by consensus, not the individual.

[Nederland]

103. And one hundred years ago...

to be gay meant to be happy. The meanings of words change. Live with it.

I'm not suggesting that you change your position on the issue, I merely suggest that you use language in a way that conforms with how people use it in this century. I'm sure you'll find it much easier to communicate with people that way.

[outinforce]

105. Gay Still Means "Happy"

I'm gay.

I'm happy.

Since you suggest living with the changing meaning of words, here's something I might suggest for you -- begin to think of newborns not as persons. Endowing newborns with personhood merely makes it difficult to acknowledge that prospective parents really ought to have greater choice when it comes to becoming actual parents.

If you get use to thinking in this way, then it will, over time, no doubt become easier to speak of mothers leaving the hospital with "babies" (just as we still talk about "the baby" kicking inside the womb) without giving those newborn "babies" the legal protection that personhood affords them now.

[Nederland]

74. Just to be clear

Are you saying that there is nothing wrong with killing a one month old child?

[outinforce]

94. I Don't Believe I Ever Said That

In fact, my own personal view is that it would be wrong to abort a fetus one month after it has left the womb.

I would never do it.

But that doesn't mean, I think, that I should prevent others from exercising that choice, if it were legally possible for them to have that choice.

I do not really understand why this argument is so terribly difficult to understand or to accept.

It's really all about choice.

[Nederland]

98. More questions

If a person said that according to their own personal beliefs, black people are sub human and therefore suitable to use as slaves, would you simply sit by and assert their right to "choose"?

If a person said that according to their own personal beliefs, there was nothing wrong with killing homosexuals, would you simply sit by and assert their right to "choose"?

If a person said that according to their own personal beliefs, women have fewer rights than men and should be kept barefoot in the kitchen, would you simply sit by and assert their right to "choose"?


No, its not about choice. Its about what we as a society believe is right and what is wrong. Morality is not a matter of personal choice. If it was you would have to throw out every single law because ultimately what is right and wrong would merely be a matter of personal opinion. Are you prepared to throw out all our laws?

The history of slave law provides a good parallel. In the beginning of this country's history, in the South at least, the morality of slavery was a personal decision. If you thought that slavery was immoral, you didn't own slaves. If you thought it was OK, you were free to go out and have slaves. It was a personal choice.

Then a group of people came together and asserted that black people had rights and could not be held as slaves. They disputed the idea that it was merely a matter of choice. Slavery was wrong, for all people everywhere in the country. Over the course of time, they forced this moral assertion on the rest of the country until the law reflected this view as well.

Did the abolitionists do the wrong thing? Should they have sat back a simply said "oh, well, slavery is merely an issue of personal choice"?

[outinforce]

106. Law, Morality, and All That

I think it is absolutely immoral for the state not to allow prospective parents the right to choose, after the fetus leaves the womb, whether to become real parents or not.

Absolutely immoral.

So, what I want to do is this: I want to get a group of people to come together and assert that prospective parents have rights and ought not be compelled, against their wishes and interests, to become real parents after the fetus leaves the womb. I want this group to dispute the idea that being born means, by itself, being a person. Compelling prospective parents to become real parents is wrong, for all people everywhere in the country. Over the course of time, this group will force this moral assertion on the rest of the country until the law reflects this view as well.

Thanks for you outline of how to do this.

[Az]

116. Tell ya what

You get 10 people that agree with this notion (re it should be legal for a biological parent to kill a baby after it is born up to the time it can speak in a fully developed sense) and we will discuss this matter further. Till then there is no reason to discuss this matter any further here and no one here agrees with this notion.

[Nederland]

117. Well said (nt)

[outinforce]

120. No. I'll Tell YOU What

When you become one of the Administrators or Owners or even a Moderator here on DU, THEN you can start dictating whether there is or is not a reason to discuss this or any other matter further here. You could also then impose as a criteria for posting something like "10 people must agree with your notion before you can post it". When you become an Administrator or Owner or Moderator, do let me know. Then I will listen to and follow your attempts to control discussion around here.

But not until then.

And here's one more suggestion for you.

No one is forcing you to discuss this with me.

As far as I can tell, you initiated this current exchange of posts.

Not me. You.

[Az]

122. Delusional and out of touch with reality

That was my second post on this thread. No one has replied to my initial post in this thread. Are you that out of touch that you think this is a crusade against you? I am certainly no moderator here. I am just one voice. But by my observation the vast majority here are tired of this little tirade of yours. My suggestion was one to protect you rather than attack you. You are going to eventually burn out whatever welcome the mods have here for you with your continuous bait attempts on others here with this foolish crusade.

Here is my opinion. You are either extremely delusional with a serious lack of understanding of reality and really believe this nonsense or you are baiting people here in a mistaken attempt to use cognitive disonance to discredit the prochoice argument. Either case you are not effective.

[outinforce]

132. Delusional?

And out of touch with reality?

Wow.

Just where did you get your degree in Psychoanalysis of Internet Posters? I truly wonder about anyone who would, without even meeting a person, throw about terms like "delusional".

Following your example, though, do you mind if I have a bit of a go at Psychoanalysis of Internet Posters? You'll forgive me, I'm sutre, since this is my first time doing this. But you and a couple of other posters recently have, I think, provided me several examples of how it is done.

Let's see......

In response to one of my posts, you wrote:

"Tell ya what...You get 10 people that agree with this notion (re it should be legal for a biological parent to kill a baby after it is born up to the time it can speak in a fully developed sense) and we will discuss this matter further. Till then there is no reason to discuss this matter any further here and no one here agrees with this notion."

Whereupon, I object.

Part of your reply to my objections was this: "Are you that out of touch that you think this is a crusade against you?"

This part of your reply indicates, to me anyway, that you are delusional with a serious lack of understanding of reality.

The gravity of your delusion and lack of understanding manifested itself when you said, "My suggestion was one to protect you rather than attack you".

Thanks just the same, Az, for your concern and your offer to "protect" me.

But I honestly think that I can protect myself.

Even from people who might try to get me to self-censor myself and not present ideas that some here don't like.

[Bettie]

136. Parents can choose

After a baby is born, the parents can choose to relinquish the child for adoption, terminating their rights and responsibilities toward the child.

There is no need to allow for "terminating" children once they are born. I have read your posts and I do not understand at all where this kind of viewpoint comes from.

[outinforce]

139. Of Course They Can

Of course parents can choose to give their "child" up for adoption.

But even now, when some parents do that, some of them live the rest of their lives wondering.

Some wonder if they will ever be contacted by the "child" they gave over to adoption.

Some wonder what the "child" must think of them.

And so on.

Why would you want to burden parents with such awful thoughts -- for the rest of their lives?

Why do you appear to be so opposed to maximizing choice for parents?

[Kipepeo]

125. He's not saying that

I *assume* he thinks he's being clever by trying to get pro-choicers to say that killing a baby who can't yet speak is baby-killing, so that he can then ask what is the difference between that and abortion. (gasp!)

What's stupid is that personhood is not dependent on the ability to speak and I don't think I've *ever* heard a pro-choicer argue that, so I don't know why he thinks that makes sense. What *is* the obvious difference between a baby and a fetus is that one lives inside of a woman and one lives outside of her. And I don't care what he calls it: baby, fetus, it doesn't matter to me. The distinction is that giving a baby legal rights does not affect the mother's rights, but giving a fetus legal rights would *necessarily* diminish the woman's right to make decisions for her own goddamn body.

Personhood (at least in terms of legal rights) is not dependent on speech, it is dependent on not living inside of another person.

[outinforce]

135. Blah, Blah, Blah......

"The distinction is that giving a baby legal rights does not affect the mother's rights, but giving a fetus legal rights would *necessarily* diminish the woman's right to make decisions for her own goddamn body."

Giving the baby legal rights does not affect the mother's rights?? Excuse me?

As things stand now, with "babies" having full rights as persons, the right of the mother are most certainly affected. If the "baby" becomes ill, the mother, I think, is legally obligated to get medical care for it. The mother is m ost certainly obligated to feed and provide water. The mother has no right -- currently -- to determine that the "baby" poses a threat to her own well-being and her own life plans and dreams. Or, if she does, her only legal option is to give the "baby" over for adoption. That is not only a very painful option, but one which leaves the mother not knowing if she will ever again be contact by the "baby" once it grows up. The mother -- under current law -- is not free end the life systems of the "baby" and just get on with her own life, secure in the knowledge that she will never see this unwanted "baby" again.

"Personhood (at least in terms of legal rights) is not dependent on speech, it is dependent on not living inside of another person"

Your free to determine what you want to call a person (just as some anti-choice zealots prefer to call fetuses persons). And I'm free to posit a new definition for personhood and to try to change the law.

[Kipepeo]

168. blech blech blech

"Giving the baby legal rights does not affect the mother's rights?? Excuse me?"

You're excused.

Giving a baby legal rights does not impede on a woman's right to make decisions for her body in the way that giving a fetus legal rights does. I can't figure out how to draw a diagram in a post so I'll have to ask you to picture with your mind's eye:

fetus, inside woman's body

baby, outside woman's body

Was that too hard?

"And I'm free to posit a new definition for personhood and to try to change the law."

Of course you are "free" to push for sexist anti-choice anti-woman legislation. And I'm free to call you on it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

68. So mute people aren't persons?

I think you make up this shit as you go along void of any true deductive reasoning

[Susang]

75. Don't get him started

Just check out this thread and you'll get the drift of his argument:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1854556

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

Please..I already know the script..I'm not new here

[Susang]

78. Wasn't implying that

Just didn't know if you had seen how ridiculous that thread had actually gotten. Didn't mean to offend. I'll just shut up now.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

83. you didn't offend me at all :)

(sorry the sarcasm didn't translate well...love ya honey! :hi: )

[Susang]

91. Whew!

I was worried there for a second. :hi: :loveya:

[Donkeyboy75]

84. I appreciated the heads-up, Susang.

Thanks. :hi:

[Susang]

89. Knowledge is power

Or so they tell me. ;-)

Hey, we gotta think about a Chicago thing soon. I'm getting thirsty and considering how close we are (I hear you can throw a rock and hit my house!), its criminal. :beer:

[Donkeyboy75]

93. And...I'm only going to be around for two more months.

I definitely want to hang with some DUers before I leave this great city!

[outinforce]

88. I'm Like nothingshocksmeanymore

I love ya too, honey!

I guess you feel it is wrong to offend nothingshocksmeanymore.

But why do you feel it is ok to insult me?

What's nothingshocksmeanymore got that I haven't got?

[Susang]

96. I can't....its just too tempting..............I have punchline paralysis!

If you are offended by your very own words written by your very own hands, then who's really to blame? You must really be taking offense at yourself.

And with that, adieu!

[outinforce]

100. I Think That It Was Your Hands

that typed the word "ridiculous", n'est-ce pas?

I know I my hands didn't type these very words: "Just didn't know if you had seen how ridiculous that thread had actually gotten"

I thought you hands did.

Perhaps you would not be insulted if I were to say that your posts here are just ridiculous.

[Susang]

107. I said the thread was ridiculous, no?

Since I did not single out any individual, YOU must have assumed I meant yours. Whether you believe it or not, I think that entire thread is ridiculous. It didn't start out that way, but it sure as hell ended that way.

As far as calling my posts ridiculous, feel free to fire away. You see, I'm secure enough to either think about what they said and agree, or just not give a shit. You see, sometimes my posts are ridiculous. So no, I would not be insulted.

[outinforce]

111. Didn't Your Hands Also Type

"adieu"????

I know it wasn't my hands that typed this: "And with that, adieu!"

Gee, I guess it really wasn't "adieu" after all?

I must have misread your posts which warned or cautioned others on this thread about not getting me started and pointed to other threads.

It sure looked to me as though you were singling me out.

I didn't see you referring to anyone else when you pointed to other threads.

So you just feel free to strike and smear, secure in your ability to try to wiggle out when your little tactic is caught and exposed.

TTFN

[Susang]

129. "Feel free to strike and smear"?

Well, I was born in the Chinese astrological year of the snake. Thanks, I think I may take you up on that offer sometime. Though I 'm pretty busy, what with being responsible for original sin and all.

Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

[Cheswick2.0]

133. Original sin is a burden we must all gladly shoulder as women

Didn't you get your handmaiden's rule book?

[Susang]

142. I wear my scarlet letter with pride

Sure as hell (get it, hell?) beats the alternative. ;-)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

114. A vagina and the ability to reason deductively rather than in a circular

fashion with invalid premises and faulty logic....

[outinforce]

121. OK, I'll Admit

you've got a vagina, and I haven't.

But the rest of what you said?

It is to laugh!

Really!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

123. Have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the reader

[Forkboy]

141. class,dignity,intelligence

want me to go on?

[outinforce]

143. How You Do Go On!

Do I want you to go on?

Why, heavens no.

You have gone on quite enough already.

I have to return now to dealing with my "mommy issues" -- something someone you think has "dignity, class, and intelligence" told me I have.

<<chortle>>

[Forkboy]

144. She's right

And you're wrong,once again.I haven't gone on quite enough yet. :hi:

[outinforce]

145. Mommy!

I assume that you mean that another poster is "right" about me having "Mommy Issues".

I could say that I sometimes wonder, given what I consider to be her misanthropic comments, her Daddy issues are, but I won't.

I need to run off to Momnmy now.

[Forkboy]

147. Good idea

Tell her we all said hi!

[outinforce]

149. I Did

and she told me to tell you something about cheneying yourselves.

Not quite sure what she meant by that.

Guess I'll have to go ask her to explain it to me a bit more.

Mommy!!

[Runcible Spoon]

118. hmmm this is a new strategy of his

unless it's just that I've been gone for a while. Last time it was oblique counter-questions. Either way, he has to be one the most dishonest posters I have ever met. Methinks this is just a way to trick newbies and portray pro-choicers as advocating for post-gestational baby killers. Sad, really.

[outinforce]

85. Where Did I Say That Mute Persons Aren't Persons????

Why have you chosen to put words into my mouth?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

90. You used language as the litmus test...it's a valid inquiry

but I realize validity isn't a priority for some.

[outinforce]

102. Yes. Language.

What does language have to do with people who are mute?

[kiahzero]

112. Still using that old straw man?

I thought we discussed this when I posted my rationale for not being concerned about abortion until the third trimester. You argued that someone could define life as beginning when one started to use language, as a lame attempt at a proof via contradiction.

Your position is a straw man, and you only insult yourself by repeatedly hoisting it up and knocking it over. Either get a real argument, or leave the debate to those who have one already.

[outinforce]

130. Strawman?

Where have I heard that before?

I think it was from someone who had a "0" (as in 'zero") at the end of one of her screen names.

Is it possible that....???

You share your view that I insult myself (I guess it must be those "mommy issues" that another poster keeps prattling on and on about) by repeatedly "hoisting it up and knocking it over".

Excuse me?

I don't recall everf knocking over my own argument.

If it is a strawman, then why don't you knock it down?

[Shakespeare]

150. Regarding "personhood"....

Because fetuses -- not matter how "viable" -- are not legally persons.

Oh, but in some cases they are, largely thanks to the current administration. We may despise them (and I'm not including you in that "we"), but they aren't stupid. They've been steadily working on a number of fronts to gain "personhood" status for ANY fetus--in some cases, outranking the mother herself.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

71. That's why the cosmic muffin made dictionaries - Look it up

Obtuse questions deserve to be responded to in kind.

[Killarney]

43. A 20 week old fetus is not a zygot or embryo and is viable

but can be legally aborted.

[Donkeyboy75]

44. Children born at 20 weeks are not viable.

They require sometimes measures to keep them alive, and even then the survival rate is less than 2 percent. This does not qualify as "viable." Check your facts.


http://www.muhc.ca/media/ensemble/2002june/premature/

"Babies born earlier than 22 weeks may have a heartbeat or pulse, but do not survive and gestation periods that end before 20 weeks result in a 'miscarriage.'"

[Killarney]

45. Check YOUR facts

I happen to be close to a happy and healthy 3 year old boy who was born at 20 weeks. He was in NICU for a few months but has no problems.

I happen to think he was and is quite viable.

Medical science gets better and better each year, ya know?

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[Donkeyboy75]

67. 2% of babies born at this stage DO survive.

I have no reason to believe he/she is lying.

[Donkeyboy75]

66. My facts are statistics.

Yours is an anecdote...although a happy one :) It doesn't disprove that only 2% of babies born at this stage survive.

Viable, BTW, means capable of living outside the mother's womb without artificial support. In the case you quote, the 20-week old fetus was not viable, as he required NICU.

But, seriously, I'm happy it turned out well for him.

Edited for spelling. D'oh

[Killarney]

69. Ah, artificial support

If you define viable by artificial support, then many babies born only 3 weeks early wouldn't be viable! (some that are born only 3 weeks early need oxygen in NICU for a little while)

But, I understand your point that it's not viable in your eyes until it can live without artificial support (feeding tube, oxygen, etc.).

In my eyes, viable is when it has a chance to live outside the womb, even with temporary artificial support. When Roe v Wade was originally passed, babies probably didn't have a chance until they were 30 weeks (I'm guessing) but now it's much earlier so I tend to disagree with many second trimester abortions.

Thanks for debating with me in a civil way. :) Cheers. :toast:

[Donkeyboy75]

92. Yes, civil debate is nice around here.

BTW, the viable definition I used is the dictionary's definition...and I'm pretty certain the medical definition.

"Viable: Capable of life. For example, a viable premature baby is one who is able to survive outside the womb"

[Killarney]

101. the def. doesn't say anything about artificial support

a baby with artificial support IS surviving outside the womb. it's not like it's braindead or anything, it just has a feeding tube (or oxygen or whatever) but it is surviving outside the womb

not to nitpick, but you know. ;)

[Donkeyboy75]

109. I asked for some clarification from two M.D.'s in my lab,

and they seem to think the definition IMPLIES no artificial support, but they weren't sure. So I guess we both can be right. ;)

:toast:

[redqueen]

124. Nobody wants to hear it

:(

[Cheswick2.0]

58. a 20 week fetus is almost never viable

and of course it can be legally aborted since the life and health of the pregnant women is more important than the fetus.

[Killarney]

65. Of course the life and health of the pregnant women

is more important than the fetus, but those aren't the only reasons 20 week olds are being aborted.

I fully support choice for the first trimester for any reason and I fully support abortion at any week gestation for the life of the mother or for incompatibility with life for the child.

Where I disagree with many liberals is that I think 20 weeks (in this day and age where medical science has advanced since Roe v Wade was first passed) is too late for a "regular" abortion.

What has changed my mind about when the "cut-off" should be is my own experience in being a mother (seeing the 13 and 18 week ultrasounds) and in my experience of knowing this boy that was born at 20 weeks (which you called me a liar about).

I know most pro-choicers wouldn't agree with me, but hey, such is life. :)

[Roaming]

146. I don't think I agree with the statement that the life and health of the

mother is more important than the fetus. Why can't they be equally important? What makes one life worth more than another?

[outinforce]

148. AAaaaaacccccckkkkkkkkk!!!

"Why can't they be equally important? What makes one life worth more than another?"

Anyone with even half of a non-misogyinstic brain knows the answer to this one.

Because the mother is a living person.

The fetus is a mere blob of parasitic tissue.

D'uh.

[Roaming]

153. You could look at a fetus as a little parasite I suppose; however

it is most definitely human (it's not a tapeworm or some creature of another species). And it is also most definitely alive, with a heartbeat and brain waves...

[outinforce]

155. IT IS A PARASITE!

Do you think that just because it is alive and has a heartbeat and brainwaves, that it isn't a parasite?

Ticks are alive. They are parasites.

Like ticks, the little parasites inside a woman's womb live off the blood of their hosts.

Call them human if that makes you feel good. They are human parasites.

[Roaming]

157. I think a fetus is more like a person hooked up to life-support than

what most people think of as a parasite. For one thing, a fetus doesn't drink the blood of its host; it gets nutrients and oxygen through the umbilical cord and placenta. Also, a parasite is something of another species that comes in from the outside and attaches to a host; a fetus is the joining of egg and sperm, resulting in new life. But yes, a fetus is totally dependent upon the mother for all its needs, so I guess you could call it parasitic in that respect.

However, that doesn't get around the fact that, although it is dependent upon the mother for its life (much as a person hooked up to life-support is dependent on the oxygen/blood machine to keep him/her alive), why is that life inherently worth less than any other human life?

[outinforce]

159. Good Ghea Almighty!

To suggest that a woman is little more than a machine -- an "oxygen/blood machine", while at the same time trying to deny that a fetus is a parasite!!!!

That takes fetus-worship to a new high.

And it takes misogyny to a new low.

Have you no shame?!

[Roaming]

161. A mother and a fetus are both human; my difficulty is trying to understand

why one is more valuable than another, just because one is (temporarily) dependent upon another for life.

[outinforce]

162. My Sperm and I

are both human.

Which do you think I consider to be more valuable?

Hint: It's the one who is able to use language and is a person.

[Roaming]

164. Sperm is not a human being; it's a cell; a human being doesn't

result from sperm until it meets a human egg and develops into a fetus...

[outinforce]

165. And A Fetus

isn't a human being, either.

I am.

You make my point for me.

[Cheswick2.0]

151. one is a living human being with a life

one is living inside the other and is not yet born.

[Roaming]

152. So they are both living humans; one is the host providing the life

for the other; but I still can't come to a conclusion that one is inherently more valuable than the other; life is life, isn't it?

I guess a parallel in my mind is someone who's badly injured and is temporarily hooked up to life support to sustain their life, until they heal. Their life has worth, though, doesn't it?

[outinforce]

156. Life is Life

What a ridiculous comment.

Next you'll say, I suppose, that a lock of your hair (which is alive) is of the same value as cheswick.

[Roaming]

158. I guess I should clarify: Human life is human life.

Just because one life is dependent and another is independent, my only question is, why is one inherently worth more than the other?

[outinforce]

160. Asked And Answered

"why is one inherently worth more than the other?"

Already asked.

ALready answered.

One is a person.

The other is a parasite.

Are you just being intentionally dense today?

[Roaming]

163. OK, for the sake of trying to use terms that we can both agree upon,

One is a human person, another is a human-parasite person. My point is that they both human...

[outinforce]

166. I WILL NOT

I will certainly NOT agree with you that a fetus is a person in any way, shape, or form.

I can agree that both are human.

But I am a human person.

My snot is human snot. It is not a human person.

Of the two -- Me or my snot, which do you think I consider more vaulable?

Hint: Snot can't use language.

[outinforce]

48. What I Think Is Being Said

I think the subject is CHOICE.

It appears as though 3rdParty is saying that s/he thinks slavery is wrong.

But s/he would not want to force those views on anyone else.

Because forcing those viewson other people would restrict thier CHOICE.

See??

[noiretextatique]

53. you needn't worry your head about it

since abortion is NEVER a choice YOU would have to make.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

79. Yes I get it and it doesn't pass the fucking smell test since slaves don't

CHOOSE TO BE SLAVES (again as viable human beings since I want to short circuit your next response which will be zygots don't choose to be zygots) unless you are David Horowitz or Ron Jeremy

IT's an invalid comparison.

[outinforce]

82. When Was The Last Time YOU Heard

of a fetus who chose to be a fetus?

What's viabilty got to do with anything, anyway?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

87. Viability has everything to do with it....

and did you not read my post? Your specious arguments are predictable.

[Zynx]

49. Your position is valid

I'm Catholic and think that certain types of abortion (viable fetus, abortion as birth control substitute) are sick.

However, I don't want to see the United States return to an era of women's rights that was *less* liberal, by far, than the Soviet Union.

Unlike what the Christian Taliban thinks, I don't believe women should be made second-class breeders.

[outinforce]

56. I Agree!

I really agree with you comment about women not being second class breeders.

I would also add that our current law is really not as liberal as it could or should be.

Under our current law, parents have no choice once a fetus leaves the womb.

If the fetus that leaves the womb is not really what they wanted, or if the financial situation of the parents has changed, or if the parents feel that their opportunities for growth as human beings is threatened by the fetus that has just left the womb, they are stuck. The law does not give them the legal right to choose whether to be parents or not.

And isn't that silly?

I mean, here you have two grown adults -- clearly human beings -- being forced to do all sorts of things for something that cannot feed itself, cannot dress itself, cannot express itself except through crying.

Why we call something like that a "person", I'll never know.

[noiretextatique]

72. so-called "pro-lifers" murder doctors and bomb clinics

:eyes: real concern for life after birth :eyes:

[Donkeyboy75]

76. A very small population of pro-lifers engage in this activity

That doesn't make them all violent. :eyes:

[noiretextatique]

113. you lay down with dogs, you get fleas

:shrug: support for anti-woman policies makes stange bedfellows...i didn't create that reality.

[Donkeyboy75]

115. You didn't say "some" in your post... n/t

And I consider myself an environmentalist, but don't condone the actions of environmental terrorists, so I don't really think your statement is fair, even if you did mean to write "some."

[noiretextatique]

126. corrected....sorry, i didn't use "some"

i don't care if you think my statement is fair, to be perfectly honest. you may not condone the actions of environmental terrorists, but you are essentially on the same side of the issue...your tactics are just different. likewise with anti-choice folk...they can condemn the tactics of fanatics, but they are on the same side of the issue.

[Runcible Spoon]

119. I'm surprised your display of uber-sarcasm

hasn't burned your tongue (or in this case, your fingers) off yet. Having fun?

[outinforce]

134. Sarcasm? Uber?

I fear, FarceOfNature, that your comments about "uber-sarcasm" have been misdirected.

I think you must have meant them for another poster who is attempting, here on this thread and on other threads, to be sarcastic.

So far, without much luck.

Are you having fun?

[Cheswick2.0]

62. apologetic right wing talking points spouting pro-choicers give me a large

pain.

"Women using abortion as birth control" ........... bullshit

Women aborting viable fetus for no reason except convenience.....bullshit

If you are pro-choice and you value the rights of women, stop buying the right wing talking points about abortion. Get a spine, stop apologizing for standing up for women's rights.

[Warren DeMontague]

128. 5 Great Ideas on How To Stop Abortion!

• Support Safe, Effective Birth Control, funded by Insurance Companies or available OTC


• Support a Liveable Minimum Wage and Single Payer Health Care


• Engage in Sodomy~!


• Teach Kids About Birth Control.


• Don't Have One.

[GreenPartyVoter]

50. You are not a bad liberal. I feel like Big Dog did; make it

unncessary so that it becomes rare, but keep it legal.

[Zorra]

52. You have every right to believe what you believe.

IMO, it is thoughtfully democratic of you to be willing to allow others to make their own decisions regarding their own bodies.

[noiretextatique]

54. define "wrong" please

in any case, you are pro-choice.

[porphyrian]

55. How would allowing for more choice make you a bad liberal? -n/t

[timdoodle]

63. Again, thanks

everyone for your input, this turned out to be an active string, and the responses have made me feel more confident in my stance. I appreciate it, you are all good people.

[Donkeyboy75]

73. Nothing more liberal than having your own opinions, without forcing them

on others. Unlike other posters in this thread who would chastise you for not marching in lockstep with them and all they support. :eyes:

[Nederland]

81. Bullshit

The left has a long history of forcing their opinions on other people, and I for one am proud of that history.

Proud to say that slavery is immoral and people that disagree with me are plain wrong.

Proud to say that black kids have a right to go to the same schools as white kids and people that disagree with me are plain wrong.

Proud to say that gay people should have a right to marry and have children, and people that disagree with me are plain wrong.


I could go one but I think you get the idea.

[Donkeyboy75]

86. I probably should have been more clear,

but I thought, in context, it was obvious we were speaking about personal rights here, not taking those from others.

See the slavery straw man above.

[PoliticsSportsMusic]

104. Liberals act like repugs when it comes to abortion

You know how repugs will tell you that burning fossil fuels doesn't harm the environment...its the same thing with liberals...oh its not really a human so we can destroy it....BAD SCIENCE ON BOTH SIDES TO GET WHAT THEY WANT...face it abortion is murder.

[outinforce]

108. No It Isn't

You assert that abortion is murder.

Here's a newflash, chum:

Murder means the killing of a person.

Persons are not killed in an abortion.

Got it?

Good.

[Warren DeMontague]

127. And So Is

Masturbation, mac. Millions of little, innocent swimming sperms, dying there in horror on the bathroom tile, because you had to satisfy your sinful lust with Miss October.

And that period, ladies.. the potential baby you call an "unfertilized egg", or, even more cavalierly, "Aunt Flo"... Murder, Murder, Murder.

Life is life, at any stage. Bastards.

[Cheswick2.0]

137. I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Women should just cheney off and face their GOD GIVEN RESPONSIBILITIES as good incubators. The hell with their life or their health and THE HELL WITH THEIR HAPPINESS. Once they spread their legs then they give up any rights of their own and begin to exist only to give birth to other and much more important unborn beings.

[outinforce]

140. Once Again, cheswick,...

Once again, cheswick, you hit the nail right on the head.

However, I would suggest you modify your statement, thus:

"Women should just cheney off and face their GOD GIVEN RESPONSIBILITIES as good incubators and post-birth nurturers. The hell with their life or their health and THE HELL WITH THEIR HAPPINESS. Once they spread their legs then they give up any rights of their own and begin to exist only to give birth to and post-birth care and nuturing of, other and much more important unborn and post-born beings.

[IronLionZion]

110. bad liberal? I thought all liberals were bad!

liberals support choice. conservatives support life.

I support both.

Yes, abortion is a cruel and unusual way to murder an innocent human being, but conservatives don't offer any way to support the child they force into this world so the poor kid's life will be not much of a life anyway. In other words, people don't have the goodness to adopt and love someone else's child in large enough numbers to provide a viable solution to the children that would have been aborted.

a massive pro-adoption, education, abstinence, and birth control campaign would do more to resolve this issue than any amount of legislation could.

Also, any pro-lifers who support the death penalty and unjust wars need to be slapped really hard (you know who I'm talking about).

The right choice is life.

[ronnykmarshall]

You're 100% on this.

I can't say how I feel about abortion since I can't get pregnant. But the key phrase is "The to choose".

There are many women that are pro-choice that personally would not have an abortion.

That's the TRUE meaning of the Pro-Choice movement.

[ronnykmarshall]

131. You're 100% on this.

I can't say how I feel about abortion since I can't get pregnant. But the key phrase is "The right to choose".

There are many women that are pro-choice that personally would not have an abortion.

That's the TRUE meaning of the Pro-Choice movement.

[slackmaster]

138. Not a thing wrong with your position

You are in about the same place on that issue as Dennis Kucinich.

I think people should take every reasonable measure to avoid the need for elective abortions. Modern contraceptive methods work very well when used properly. But I have no objection to a woman aborting a fetus for any reason she chooses. The earlier the better IMO.

[Jack_DeLeon]

167. Thats about my position on abortion.

Its wrong, althought I think it can be necessary some times, I dont think it should be illegal.