Flexibility on Abortion Issue Anyone?

[NNguyenMD]

First off, let me say that I am pro-choice, and am a firm believer in a woman's right to choose. However as a student in the healthcare field, I would be happier if the number of abortions done were fewer, and if more alternatives to abortion made to women.

Who here would consider allowing a reduction the time limit your state implements for a woman to legally get an abortion, in cases where her life is not threatened and incest and rape were not the cause of the pregnancy, to say 12-15 weeks (versus 24 in places like New York). We offer this flexibility in our pro-choice stance IF and ONLY IF the right to lifers would agree to the following demands.

1. Gay couples be given equal and full adoption and parental rights as heterosexual couples.

2. RU-486 gets full FDA approval for usage in a medical abortion, and that the government either mandate or offer incentives for coverage by insurance, and federally funded medicaid.

3. That the morning after pill be made availiable at pharmacies OVER THE COUNTER and by mail, with no age limit, prescription or parental consent required. And mandate pharmacies who fill medicare and medicaid prescriptions provide morning after pill, oral contraceptives, and condoms at their stores.

4. Allow condoms and medically approved information on contraceptives and abortion to be easily accessible and distributed to students at ALL schools that accept federal funding.

5. Major tax incentives for all couples, gay and straight, to adopt a child.

6. Mandate equal time for education in contraceptive use, safe sex with condoms, and abstinence plus for EVERY minute that abstinence only education is taught by the fundies.

7. Cut the red tape and federally fund embryonic stem cell research.

And anything else any of your guys want to add. Of course this will throw the pro-lifers into a huge hissy fit, and they'll never agree to any of these demands for any flexibility we offer on our part.

But its a great way to box them in into the same traps that they set for us all the time, and making us defend "media-unfriendly" positions that make us look bad such as partial-birth abortion and the Laci-Peterson law.

By taking this positions, you out all the pro-lifers who aren't interested in reducing the number of children without loving parents, abortions, and in making them any safer, but are rather more interested in taking control of your sex life, and in taking away all the information and choices out there in making a decision on this issue.

[benburch]

1. I'll be flexible.

I won't make them mandatory after the second live birth, though we should.

[DavidMS]

2. Not perticulary intrested...

They would stab us in the back.

If you add a first rate science and math circulium to the public schools and a requirement that private and religious schools to teach the same material it might be a good deal...

That said, I wouldn't trust them to keep their end of the bargan.

[alittlelark]

3. 'They' will not agree to 75% of these terms -

against their religion.....


So what is the point?

[NNguyenMD]

10. I think it box's them in and make them publically admit that they have no

interest in reducing the number of abortions, making them safer, or even in medically approved information on teen pregnancy and safe sex. In my opinion, this makes them look really bad in a public eye that is 2/3rd pro-choice, and sucks out much of the legitimacy to their cause.

[alittlelark]

11. Oh, so they will change their 'Religious Beliefs'?

....wow.

[NNguyenMD]

13. well no, more like so the public see's them for what they really are...

religious control freaks...

And its a way to finally force them into a corner, and make them reveal the fact that they're not interseted in practical policies to making abortions safe are rare, but only care about dude's kissing and how much more great sex you're getting instead of them.

[MercutioATC]

4. To me it's not about compromise, it's about choice.

This is a decision that a woman and her doctor should make. The government has no place here. Period.

[Orangepeel]

18. true. RvW is ALREADY a compromise

many people think that the Roe decision means that a woman can have an abortion if she chooses to do so. Or, as the opponents describe it, "abortion on demand." That is incorrect. I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the ruling holds that the state cannot prohibit abortion without regard to the stage of the pregnancy. States cannot prohibit abortion during the first trimester, but they absolutely can still set limits after that, as long as they except abortions performed in order to safe guard the life of the woman.

[MercutioATC]

20. True. RvW is already a compromise.

As a man, I don't feel I have the right to dictate what a woman does with her body. I wish all men felt the same way...we wouldn't have this problem.

[Sandpiper]

5. The problem is, the pro life movement isn't looking to compromise

They're looking for total victory.

Not only do they oppose abortion under any circumstances, many of them are also opposed to the two things that are most likely to reduce unwanted pregnancy: Sex education and birth control.

Trying to find middle ground with the "pro lifers" is an exercise in futility.

[frankly_fedup2]

29. But they ARE compromising. Only they don't talk about it or they .

really do not think what they are doing is the same thing.

It's Fertility Clinics and in-vitro fertilization. We've talked about the stem cell research to use from those frozen zygotes (is that the correct name doc).

Also, when they implant fertilized eggs into the mother, they can put up to 8 at a time (probably more as well because the procedure is so expensive). Some will naturally abort themselves, while in some cases, they all will attach to the uterine wall. The parents, supposedly, have been made aware of this happening, and if it did, they may have to abort the less viable infants (which some do) so the others have a better chance for survival. Do you think they tell their other conservative friends what they've done. Why no, because it is nobody's business. (Hmmmmm, kind of sounds like a liberal).

You see, if it is to affect their own lives, and after all, they are trying to bring life into this World, the consequences of some of their actions are okay in their eyes. In other words, they justify it to fit their wants.

Now, when have you heard a right-wing, conservative Christian EVER discuss this? Ummmm . . . never.

They forget what is going on in these clinics. The fertilized eggs are frozen and if they are not used by the families later, they are disposed of. Since they are going to flush em or whatever the heck they do with them when it is time to get rid of them, why not let these be used for stem-cell research? Oh nooooooo, it's better to let them get flushed or whatever they do with them.

Bring it up next time you are talking to a friend to always votes "conservative" because she is against abortion, "and somebody has to be a voice for all those babies being murdered."

I promise you, it will throw them for a loop.

With in-vitro fertilization, there are more spontaneous abortions than anything. Why are they not trying to close these clinics down. I'll tell you exactly why.

Most of them are professionals (including their wives) who have put their careers first until the woman's little biological clock starts ticking. They have been successful in their work and now want to start a family. However, since most are waiting until their late 30's to try to get pregnant, it's not so easy. A woman does not produce as many eggs the older she gets. Since they can afford it, they will decide to get some type of help or find out what the problem is. If everyone checks out A-OK, that is when the in-vitro fertilization idea may come up. They are sent to a fertility specialist and the process begins. (look at Julia Roberts right now. She had hers implanted. Wonder how many? Wonder if she had to abort any to save others? Wonder if she has others still frozen like Celine Dion, who claims she still has one frozen and she will not leave it there but will try to get pregnant by using it sometime in the future. However, the longer the fertilized eggs are frozen, their percentage of success goes down).

They can afford this because they have worked hard and saved their money. I believe it is around 10-15 thousand dollars every time the eggs are harvested and fertilized with the father's sperm and then injected into the woman's uterus. It usually takes 2-3 times before they take. Some get lucky the first time while others continue to spontaneously abort the fertilized eggs, even after carrying them for months. I think Casey Kasem's wife had 9 missed abortions before she was finally able to have a child.

Now this is where their hypocrisy kicks in. These are your professionals that go to the church that all the other professionals in the town go to (mostly for show). It's always the biggest, prettiest, and most taken care of church in the area. None of their friends at church know about what they are going through OR they may know and are only praying for the couple to get pregnant. Now are these parents, who are pro-life, as well as their other friends at church, not willing to do whatever they need to do to have a child of their own? After awhile, they start to get desperate because of the biological clock.

These are like the people that would kill a doctor at an abortion clinic and call it justifiable homicide, or bomb the place and kill several people. Also, these are the people that believe life begins at conception (albeit in a petri dish), and quote scripture that proves abortion is a sin. However, they do not see what they are doing by having eggs harvested, fertilized, and injected into the woman, and having spontaneous abortions over and over. Then if they insert several, and suddenly she is pregnant with 8 babies or more, the doctors have to advise them of the ones to keep and the ones to abort, or there is high risk complications for the other babies being born with birth defects and/or dead. I'm not saying it is an easy decision for them, but it is one that many of them have made.

Then there are those woman that go ahead and insist on trying to have the 8 babies. However, you see that the majority of the babies suffer from some kind of health problem, either cognitively or physically or it may be developmentally as the child grows. By keeping them all, the mother is, basically, saying all or none. She cannot bring herself to choose to agree to abort even one to save seven. We never hear on the news whenever a woman loses all 8-10 babies due to not aborting some of them to save some of them; even though they realize this may be a decision they will have to make, and agree to it while the doctor is inserting up to 8 fertilized eggs into them. But until one is in that situation, who knows what you would choose to do. Hmmmmm, sounds familiar.

Sorry so long. I tend to ramble on.

[Tansy_Gold]

32. My sister just had IVF.

The cost was about $15,000.

I don't know how many eggs were extracted and fertilized. Three were deemed viable and healthy, two were implanted. Only one "took," which is good because my sister has multiple high-risk factors that would have made carrying twins even more risky.

I have no idea what will happen to embryo #3. I guess it'll just sit in some cryonic capsule and get freezer burn.

What a waste. And they are pro-choice Dems, too, who wouldn't even consider adoption.

[Mike Niendorff]

6. This is not an option (R v W, PP v CT)

As a matter of constitutional law, the state interest in protecting potential life attaches at viability. If you want to cross over that line, you'll have to take Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Connecticut out first. Or, to put it another way: you're trying to bargain with a chip you don't legally have.


MDN

[SharonAnn]

7. I think we should make contraception and morning after pills free.

And then we should let women decide what they want.

With all due respect, I would prefer that men would stay out of this issue.

[utahgirl]

8. I'm always willing to try

to negotiate, but I think David is right. You've linked hot topics like abortion, gay adoption, embryonic stem cell research, birth control accessible at schools. My suggestion would be to link complete sex education and access to contraceptives to restrictions on abortion.

Of course, I've always thought that if fundies were really sincere on the subject, every fundamentalist male would have a vasectomy at puberty (with sperm frozen for the future). Damn sure no unwanted pregnancies that way. :)

Ha. Highly damn unlikely.

utahgirl

[noamnety]

9. Nope

1. Prolife doctors will abuse the time limits by scheduling and cancelling abortion appointments to force a woman past the legal deadline. This has already been used as a strategy.

2. Direct threat to a woman's life is not the only legitimate reason to abort late. In some situations, fatal conditions for the fetus cannot be diagnosed before that time limit. If it's known 6 months into a pregnancy that there is no chance of long term survival of the baby once it's born, an abortion is a reasonable option, even if the woman's life is not in danger.

However, I do agree with you that I'd like to see less abortions. Therefore, I propose an alternative compromise. How about we establish programs and policies that seek to remove the primary reasons that women choose abortion. We establish sound economic policies that lead to job security, and we provide health care to everyone, so that women are less likely to choose abortion because of financial reasons (hospital bills for giving birth, for example). It worked under Clinton. Bush's policies have led to an increase in abortion, let's reverse those. Pro-life and pro-choice people can all get behind a plan like that.

[prairierose]

14. EXACTLY....

I was just going to say that when I read your post

And I don't think men have any place in making policy for women. They will never face the problems or the decisions.

Thes pro-fetus people also want to do away with birth control....nope you can't even talk to people who can't think rationally.

[Smarmie Doofus]

16. Actually, some pro-fetus people have no opinion on....

birth control, and some even favor it. Let's not paint with too broad a brush. Abortion is an exceedingly complex issue. One weakens the pro-choice argument when one engages in such simplisticism.

[chaska]

12. Get the gov't out of this argument. This is between a woman and her Dr.

[Placebo]

15. Listen, if we want to win elections, we're gonna have to make sacrifies...

and if that means some women having a little less freedom when it comes to their reproductive rights, then that's just going to have to be a sacrifice they'll have to make, for all of us.

We have to appeal to the fundamentalist Christians if we ever want to win again, so I'm willing to compromise where possible, and I'm sure women will be willing to compromise as well. C'mon ladies, just keep your legs together for once in your lives, it ain't that hard. Or at least keep them together until we take back the White House.

We've also got a lot of tweaking to do in our policy towards gays & lesbians. I think gays have had a free ride in the democratic party for too long and been dragging us down nationally. I mean, do they constantly have to be out there in front of the cameras? Can't they just stay backstage, or off to the side, or outside of the frame? Even better, just put them in the audience and out of the spotlight altogether. Image is important; the Republicans realize this, I don't know why Democrats still don't. Have them take out all their crazy piercings, and put make-up over their tattoos before they show their face on TV as well, this isn't an episode of 'Queer as Folk' this is politics. So yes, it's time we ask gays & lesbians to make a few sacrifices as well. :crazy:

[sally343434]

21. What "we" need?

Listen, if we want to win elections, we're gonna have to make sacrifies

Right off the bat, you're saying we need to become "more republican."

if that means some women having a little less freedom when it comes to their reproductive rights, then that's just going to have to be a sacrifice they'll have to make

Let me guess. You're a man. It's always easy to bargain away another's freedom, isn't it?

We have to appeal to the fundamentalist Christians if we ever want to win again

That is lunacy. Fundamentalists comprise 20% of the vote. They'll always vote republican.

time we ask gays & lesbians to make a few sacrifices as well.

Let me guess. You're neither gay nor lesbian. It's always easy to bargain away another's freedom, isn't it?

crazy

I'll guess that means you're being sarcastic, or your 1000+ account has been hacked!

[Placebo]

23. I was joking, sally.

Geesh. I'm on your side.

[Djinn]

24. assuming you're taking the piss here

and reading a bit further - yep you were :-)

[Maiden England]

17. I disagree

Medicine is not an area of black and white issues, rather of shades of gray. What of the Trisomy 18 cases, the Anencephaly cases, or any other of the multitude of fatal diseases only discovered at a 20 wk ultrasound. These abortions are done because the baby has no chance of survival, yet the mothers life is in danger only in a statistical sense, in that it is safer for her to abort the fetus with a fatal disorder, than to give birth to it. Which is also technically the reason for most elective abortions. Statistically, it is safer. Its a very very dangerous line to start drawing.

[NNguyenMD]

26. I agree with you, and that was a scenario that I should have included...

The current law in new york by no means is set in stone. And there are obstetricians who are pro-life, but who will refer such cases to OB's who do pregnancy termination, this is even after the 24 week limit, at least where I go to school.

Just from my impression, most abortions done today are early on in the pregnancy. The ones done later on are more rare, and there are usually reasonable circumstances to justify why a termination is desired at that point in time, such as later diagnoses of a genetic or chromosomal disorder incompatible with life, or that would greatly reduce the quality of life.

There are some situations in which if I were an OB physician, that I would feel ethically uncomfortable with performing an abortion, such as in sex determination when the abortion was desired b/c the fetus was not the gender that the parent preferred. Even in that case I would still refer the patient to another OB who I knew performed terminations. So there certainly is quite a bit of grey area to sift through.

As a matter of choice, every woman has a right to chose. To be completely honest I feel that the time limit for viability of the fetus as established in Roe v. Wade should be viewed cosmetically, b/c technology has permitted us to keep fetuses viable outside the womb of the mother well before the 24 week window of time for legal abortions.

I'm not a woman, and I'll never know what goes through the mind of a pregnant woman who has to make a decision on continuing a pregnancy. But just through my experience in interacting with the OB's whom I have met, the decision for most abortions is made early in a pregnancy, a point in time when we have the power to make abortions safe and readily accessible. The way I see it, we would be opening more choices for women by making sex education, morning after pill, and RU-486 more readily availiable and affordable to women. You could sharply reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancy by a large margin right there. The cost would be closing off an avenue of abortion done at a later period of time and rarely ever taken by women, and when it is done it is usually only done under the most mitigating circumstances, such as in late diagnoses of a genetic disorder incompatible with life, or that would greatly shorten the lifespan and quality of life of a child, circumstances which I think most person could understand if a mother decided to terminate a pregnancy for those reasons.

[Piltdown13]

30. Viability

Not sure what you mean by viewing the current viability threshhold "cosmetically, but I've come to believe that this is a tricky area. Legally, it's assumed to be at 24 weeks, although, as you say, technological advances have enabled doctors to save babies born well before that age. At some point, it seems to me that some sort of consensus needs to be reached regarding how that threshhold should be set. In particular, we need to be really careful not to simply allow it to slide backwards as younger and younger preemies survive, IMHO, though some may disagree. As a society we have to decide whether we want to draw that line based on the age of the youngest preemies to make it, or whether we want to take a more probabilistic/statistically-based approach -- i.e., maybe some babies born at 22 weeks live, but most do not...so, perhaps an argument could be made for defining "viability" as the point at which, say, over half of premature infants survive?

Obviously this is just a small point in the overall debate, but it's an important one given the way abortion is currently regulated in this country (and it's likely to remain quite important as the anti-choicers continue to chip away at reproductive rights). I have no idea what the current medical thinking is in terms of just how young of preemies we might eventually be able to save -- though surely there must be a limit -- but it's something that ought to be kept in mind.

[Taxloss]

19. Well, I don't have a uterus, so I'm not really able to comment.

It's all a matter of when a rapidly expanding bag of cells becomes a human being, and frankly some abortion conventions make me uneasy.

[msmcghee]

22. You'd get a more positive response here if you . .

. . titled your post:

"A cool way to expose the right's hypocrisy on abortion anyone?"

Framing is everything B-)

[NNguyenMD]

28. good advice, I appreciate it =)

[Djinn]

25. I'nm pretty flexible

I have no plans on forcing anyone to have an abortion so I would like it if they stopped trying to ban them

[Cheswick2.0]

27. because of the population problem, I have always favored a 2 child limit

but I can be flexible and promise not to support manditory abortion.

[REP]

33. I Can Be That Flexible

if I must!

[wabeewoman]

31. I'm only flexible

about women who take drugs and drink and have innocent children who are damaged (I feel entitled to speak to this issue as I adopted two of them). In this case, it should not be the woman's choice. She should be given a Norplant until she gets her life together and stays clean. Of course, these aren't kids the anti-abortion folks want to acknowledge or pay for and certainly not recognize that an abortion might have been a better outcome. I really didn't think these folks could get more radical but the idea of fertilized eggs being people is so extreme its silly. If only they had quality science in their home schooling and church schools(I know, painting with a broad brush....)

[UdoKier]

34. Abortion is not an issue.

It's a red herring used by the right to con religiously insane people to vote for them.

NEXT!