on 'Abortion' .... is there any middle ground?

[truthpusher]

(please read before flaming :hi:)

This is a bit of a touchy subject, so I thought I would give a little bit of info about my own experience before I ask my question...

...For starters I'm a man. I have never been in a situation where I was involved with my partner having an abortion. In other words, I don't have a lot of experience on this issue. I was witness to my now current wife making a decision not to abort, and proceed with her pregnancy, resulting in our now current daughter (my wife and I were married after our daughter was born).

Enough of that, here's my question: Is there a middle between the views from both sides on the abortion issue? Is there any way to work things out on this topic (especially before the next few elections)?

This is a tough one because you would have to somehow respect the views of one group without compromising the rights of another. I am sure this has been discussed before; I am very curious as to whether or not anybody has any solutions/ideas on this.

[murielm99]

1. The only compromise possible:

If you don't like abortion, don't have one.

[Maat]

2. This retired social worker would like to think that there was...

but there isn't.

[truthpusher]

14. Not even when you apply what I mentioned...

...that "This is a tough one because you would have to somehow respect the views of one group without compromising the rights of another."??

What about, just showing more respect for the idea behind what drives people to believe what they do?

[Maat]

23. I try ... but the images of the abandoned and neglected

children I helped rise up in my mind - the result of poor choices made by their birthmothers who had fallen sway to the religious right's propaganda.

[LWolf]

94. This has always been my conflict.

If I am 100% "prochoice," it means that I have to support the right to make poor reproductive choices that hurt the lives of innocents born because of them.

People who work with the children born to people who weren't ready or able to parent them see this side too clearly.

I'm a public school teacher. I see, and deal with, the effects of good and bad parenting daily. I see what happens to kids who don't have the emotional/social/intellectual/educational/economic foundation in their homes to nurture them or keep them secure.

I'm "prolife" in that I want to take care of those who are born, and "prochoice" in that I want women to be able to choose to terminate pregnancies.

I'm not "prolife" when it comes to limiting the right to terminate pregnance, and I'm not "prochoice" when it comes to choosing to have kids you don't have the foundation to care for properly.

I don't know what that makes me; somewhere in the middle ground the threadstarter refers to?

[housewolf]

73. I don't see how there could be a compromisse

You're asking the anti-abortionists to compromise from their stance that abortion is murder. How could they do that?

The pro-choice side doesn't address that issue. It says "It's my body, it's my right."

The problem is that the sides are not arguing the same issue.

[truthpusher]

5. Nobody really likes...

...abortion.

you said "If you don't like abortion, don't have one."

Are you actually saying, If you don't believe in abortion rights, don't have one? That doesn't make any sense either because in that case you would have an abortion every time and a whole lot of people who believe in abortion rights have children. It would be like getting pregnant just to have an abortion (John Waters does a hilarious bit on that idea actually). Right?

[murielm99]

9. You are the one not making any sense.

[truthpusher]

31. You used the word 'like'....

...I'm sorry if I'm being picky. However, I do think that language is the biggest barrier of all between the two sides. When a true believer (that abortion kills babies) hears a term like that, they pick up on it immediately and become very defensive. I want to learn how to talk to these people and let them know that I do not 'like' abortion as much as they do. It is good to empathize with them first.

I am a huge believer in a womans right to do with herself what she deems necessary. But how do you explain this to someone that honestly believes that a murder is about to take place?

The only thing I can come up with is this (talking to a Christian Anti-abortion person): "No matter what you believe, this is strictly a legal issue...you can not tell a person what to do with their own body based on a religious belief. No matter how strongly you believe something, it doesn't make it right for everybody. The best way to stop an abortion is by accepting people when they are young, by giving them a sense of support and community no matter who they are. This will lead to less unwanted pregnancies and possibly less women opting to abort.

[LisaLL]

82. try this

Responding to "abortion is murder"...

If you feel strongly about abortion, you should be motivated to learn what is most effective in reducing abortions. The best way to reduce abortions is to prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place. Making abortion illegal is not effective in reducing abortions.

I value the lives of women, children, fetuses. I value health and safety, honesty, and effective problem-solving. That's why I support the measures that reduce abortion by preventing unintended pregnancies, support policies that make it easier for women to raise their children in healthy environments, making abortion rare by prevention and keeping it legal to prevent the additional loss of women's lives.

[murielm99]

91. First of all, I have tried this.

I have parents who are anti-abortion freaks.

They picket clinics, they believe the junk science, they belong to anti-abortion nut case groups.

There is no middle ground with these people. Believe me, I have tried. I have tried every reasonable argument in the book.

Trying to be reasonable with them is very much like the leadership in the Democratic party saying, "Oh, we have to move to the center. We have to try to be more moderate, to appeal to the middle voters."

Bullshit.

Abortion is a right. It is a viable choice. There is no compromise.

I have daughters of child-bearing age. There will be no coat hangers or back alleys for them. And, as far as I am concerned, if you are a male, you have no right to voice an opinion in this debate.

[cally]

101. We don't need the anti-abotrion freaks, just the middle

Some will never compromise but I think we have to. Every person I know who went to a swing state said that we lost mainly over abortion. These are folks who are adamantly pro-choice who learned the hard way that this issue loses elections. Many think Dems are 'baby killers.' Our rhetoric that 'it's my body, my choice' is not working.

Very few want to give up on this issue, but we have to re-think it. We have to change the debate and stress that we want to reduce abortions. Focus on children and life. Stress how Dem policies reduce abortions. Stress that we don't like abortion but we don't believe in criminalizing it. Focus on the class issues....rich will continue to have safe, legal abortions but others will not. I don't know, but we have to figure this one out.

[Telly Savalas]

156. Exacty.

We don't want the votes of people who picket abortion clinics. However there are a lot of people who aren't that wacky, yet have misgivings about abortion. We should show that we respect their views in the manner that LisaLL and cally pointed out, instead of just saying "fuck you, we're right so piss off". Beyond this, I think we should try to subvert the debate on abortion by using it as a launching board for a discussion of child poverty as well. Have a talking point like: "How can the GOP claim to be pro-life when they sit complacently while 1 in 6 children in the US are in poverty. Life continues after birth, you know. If they were truly pro-life they'd make sure that every kid had access to quality health care, food on their table, and a good education."

None of this means we should cede a single inch in the fight for women's reproductive rights. We're just arguing that the rhetoric we use should be more inclusive.

[txaslftist]

102. Well that's wierd...

All nine of the justices who decided Roe v. Wade were male.

They decided it based a constitution written entirely by males.

All of the opinions prefacing the privacy right they relied on were opinions by male justices exclusively.

[yurbud]

117. Even after viability?

What if your daughter hid the pregnancy until she was showing?

[youngred]

139. so much hostility

yes the right to chose is indeed a right. But you can reach an accord with the non-hardliners who don't like abortion but don't want to limit choice either. In the meantime we keep losing out on the debate because they have the more visceral appeal to emotion in murdering babies.

[The White Tree]

129. I am pro-choice because of my religious beliefs.

Not that my church supports what I believe but here is it:

This a a LTTE I sent (never published) to the NYTimes on 10/22 regarding this issue.

As a Catholic, I agree with Charles Chaput, Catholics have an obligation to work for the common good and the dignity of every person. However, that obligation can take many forms. Giving to charities that feed the poor saves lives, helping those in need may restore dignity. But no Catholic is obligated to have to save every single life in the world.

Catholics are also taught to judge not, lest we be judged. To assume that women who get abortions are criminals worthy of harsh judgment and punishment, I think, over steps our bounds. For Catholics to judge any women for her choice is wrong. To force women to do what we as Catholics want is wrong. We can persuade, we can hope, we can help, but we cannot force our will on another. That goes against our faith.

It’s discouraging that an archbishop of my faith doesn’t understand this.(end of letter).

It is for this reason that I remain resolutely pro-choice. If my wife got pregnant and the doctor said, after she had gotten pregnant, that she could die by having the baby, I would hope that I could respect her choice in whatever action was taken. And believe me that is not an easy decision because I love my wife more then anything and I am almost positive that her choice would be to have the baby and risk death. I don't know if that'd be my choice. Either way I would not judge her. If I won't judge my wife in this way, then how can I judge any other woman in that way.

However, that doesn't mean I like the thought of a million abortions a year. The middle ground then is that we have to all focus on the issue of stopping unwanted pregnancies through education, all education including abstinence, and support as part of a strategy to prevent abortions. I think that is where the Democratic platform should go on this.

After all the pro-life platform as I understand it is really untenable - making abortion illegal will not stop abortions from occurring. Anyone who believes that is seriously deluded. So if the best case scenario is to reduce them, then we should work to do what works best to reduce them and that has strongly been proven to be education and increased economic opportunity for the lower class. The middle ground is to find a way to allow a persons faith to enter into that. As John Kerry said - a womans choice is between her, her doctor and her God.

Sorry for the long post. This is something I really struggle with. Hope this is useful to you.

[loyalsister]

153. Abortion is like divorce

In Sarah Weddington's book "A Question of Choice," she likens abortion to divorce.
No one marries with an intent to eventually go through a divorce, however it is often the only way to make a person's life bearable.
Some people may object to the idea and would never divorce themselves, however it is absolutly not something most people would ever consider making illegal.
Similarly, people do not intentionally place themselves in the position of making a decision about whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Accidents happen, and even when people are careless, there was not intent to put themselves in that terrible position.
We try to prevent divorce by marrying sensibly as possible. That one is even more difficult to prevent than pregnancy. We are damn lucky to have the options we have with things like sex ed, BC and ESPECIALLY emergency contraception.
If we want to see a reduction in the number of abortions, EC is our middle ground. It all depends on where a person's priorities lie. Some people are in it for the grandstanding and political manipulation. Those who truly want to see a reduction in the unplanned pregnancies that lead to abortions would support programs that prevent what leads to the decision.

[K-W]

11. You overthought that one quite a bit.

The post meant simply. If you oppose the practice of abortion, choose not to have one when the time comes. The implication is that you should not tell other people what decision they should make.

[truthpusher]

19. I fully agree...

...but try saying that to an anti-abortion person, it makes them freak out...my original inspiration for the post was to figure a way to get a dialog open, is it really and impossible topic?

[Warpy]

21. Not quite

The middle ground lies in deploring abortion for oneself but remembering what it was like when abortion was illegal, and therefore being against any restrictions on safe and legal early abortion.

Once you clear away all the hysteria and overstatement, that's where I think most people are.

Moderates know that abortion won't be stopped, that antiabortion laws only stop the safe ones.

They may disagree about second trimester abortions until they are presented with actual case histories and they understand that it's purely a medical decision for the most tragic of reasons, not just a whim.

[Mugsy]

96. There is, in fact, a compromise.

I wish more people would take on my position on this.

(I preface this by noting that I am pro-choice but anti-abortion as a means of "birth control")

If you consider that there are in fact THREE stages of fetal "viability", then it solves A LOT of problems: "fertilization, attachment and growth"

That second stage is the one most forget. Until the fertilized egg actually attaches itself to the uterine wall and receives its blood supply, it can not become viable.

God, if you believe in such, already has no problem with disposing of fertilized eggs. It happens all the time. Any woman that has ever had unprotected sex prior to her period, has evacuated fertilized eggs from her system. It is completely natural, and "rhythm method" sex has been promoted by many religious for centuries as a way to "fulfill marital obligations without conceiving additional children".

So if you include the stage of "attachment", and argue that simply being "fertilized" isn't viable even in the eyes of God until the egg actually attaches itself to the wall of the woman's uterus, thus receiving the blood supply for food/oxygen, then it can never grow to become anything more than just a fertilized egg set in motion by a chemical reaction. Eventually, without "attachment", that reaction will cease on its own and flushed from the womans system... a system designed by God.

(PS: I know this doesn't resolve every problem, and may even create others, but it gets you closer than any other... most importantly, making "stem cell research" religiously permissible.)

[seventythree]

118. good points

but if you only allow abortion in the pre-attachment stage, it's only allowable for like 7 days, I think, and the only "abortion" would be chemical, preventing implantation. It sort of addresses the birth control pill issue, except for the fact that the anti-choicers often think that the soul enters the conceptus at conception. It's not about science to them; it's about religion. You may know that ob/gyn's actually define pregnancy at attachment so they can say that birth control pills, IUD's, etc, do not abort a pregnancy since they make the womb hostile (as well as preventing ovulation much of the time)and implantation is avoided.

[Mugsy]

127. Not a huge window, but still a true compromise.

I know that this doesn't entirely resolve the issue (nothing will), but it buys you a week or two more than you had before, and allows for "stem cell research".

It would be difficult, following my logic, for those opposing on religious grounds to continue to argue "a fertilized egg has a soul" if God himself "aborts" billions of fertilized eggs every day.

[K-W]

3. Yes, there is a compromise position.

It is that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.

That while they should be available, we should be making an effort on some other front to eliminate or reduce the practice.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

7. Yes, exactly! n/t

[yardwork]

30. I agree - that is the obvious solution

The Republicans have been in charge long enough to have done something about abortion if they really cared. They don't. They use it as a wedge issue.

Democrats, on the other hand, are the ones who actually try to stop abortions, by trying to expand health care coverage, expand access to health care, expand women's rights to use contraception.

Republicans block every one of those attempts. I conclude that Republicans like abortion being legal - it give them a wedge issue to get votes and they don't give a damn about the unborn babies.

[truthpusher]

44. I agree but...

...what you said here:

"I conclude that Republicans like abortion being legal - it give(s) them a wedge issue to get votes and they don't give a damn about the unborn babies."

maybe a bit harsh, most people are good and they do give a damn.

It might have something more to do with them thinking they own this issue and by preventing us making progress on this, they can continue to own it. Their pride and greed for power, gets in the way of their heart.

[yardwork]

61. When I said "Republicans" I meant the party decision-makers

I didn't mean ordinary people. I meant bushco - the people who set the Republican agenda.

[truthpusher]

37. I like that idea...

...I thought when John Kerry was running, he could have gone a long way by not being afraid of bring up this topic. Bush is such a dick to these poor people who truly believe he is going to make abortion illegal. Bush has and will do nothing, because he can't, and he knows it. I am absolutely not concerned that abortion will be made illegal. what I am concerned with is the liars getting all the votes.
Kerry would have done well by committing himself to programs that reduce abortion while upholding womens rights 100%.

[ott]

52. Bingo!

Couldn't have said it better.

It's not the pro-choice side that's unwilling to compromise either. It's not like we're out there advocating abortion as the only means of birth control, disbarment of any kind of safety net, and removal of common sense sexual education. ... All for the love of abortion.

[rbnyc]

104. But sadly...

...those who claim to be so concerned for life would rather see an increase in abortions than anything that appears to be a compromise of their position.

The key to conflict resolution is to separate issues from positions. But these people are married to their positions because it isn't about the issue for them. It is indeed about the fight, about alignment, about being on a side, and for most so-called pro-lifers, about hating liberals.

(Liberal pro-lifers, IMO, are simply misguided.)

[yankeeinlouisiana]

4. No!

The pro-choice people have it right, if you don't want one, don't have one.

If anti-choice people were true to their cause, they would be putting their efforts into real sex ed, not against contraceptives and good "homes"/programs for girls/women who are in need of assistance.

They would support programs to help pay for child care and would be fighting for better wages for everyone. But all of this would mean more taxes and that shows where their true loyalties lie, with their pocket books!!

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. In a general way, there seems to be consensus evolving...

that abortions are undesirable, should be discouraged,should be rendered unnecessary ---- but that the final say should rest with the individual and not with the state.

[Ron Green]

8. The only direction I can go with this is to acknowledge that an abortion

is a tragic and painful end to life that might have been, but that it's completely within a woman's right to choose that end. It is too often trivialized, I think, by the RWers who see pro-choice as simply a convenient way to avoid the consequences of one's actions. In my experience and in my view it's a very sobering decision, involving grief.

At the same time, I think it's important for pro-choice people to understand that RWers are in the grip of their religious hysteria, and are to be forgiven and pitied for that.

[bunkerbuster1]

116. Sure, and then the kicker question: "Do you want docs & patients in JAIL?"

Ask the pro-life person: "Do you want to charge doctors and their patients with first-degree murder?"

I've met few who feel that way.

This, my freinds, is where we find middle ground. If we identify the reThugs as the Criminalization party, we win this, big-time.

[Ron Green]

126. I agree. By forcing their hand about the murder issue, we move reasonable

people toward the middle ground. The extreme Fetus People will always point out that the unborn is innocent, while adults are held responsible, but I think if the first-degree murder test is made, they will see the gray areas.

[zmdem]

10. I think so

The constitution has nothing to say on the issue, direct or implied. Therefore it is a matter for the various states. Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the states should legislate on the matter. If NY wishes abortion to be legal, OK; if WY wishes to ban the procedure that's OK too.

[K-W]

15. Luckily the supreme court knew more than you do.

For the state to gain jurisdiction over a woman's womb, there would need to be a more pressing concern than the moral outrage of a vocal minority.

Get your fellow citizens to agree with you before you try to legislate your opinion down their throat or dont you dare talk to me about the constitution. Or did the constitution mention theocracy somewhere that I didnt read?

[Erika]

16. The U.S. Constitution

allows for the right of privacy. The government does not belong in a woman's reproductive decisions. Whether it be the feds or the states.

[saracat]

33. Thank god you don't have any influence on this issue.

Roe V. Wade overturned? Are you mad? Do you realize women died for this right? This country has never before rescinded a right once granted. Are you suggesting that women could exercise control over their own bodies only in certain states? Do you have any idea what that would entail? Apparently not or you wouldn't have posted it!

[seventythree]

47. forgot prohibition

[saracat]

62. true.

[Gloria]

12. The middle ground should be that it is a decision to be made

privately by a woman involving her doctor, her family, her God, if she has one, totally out of the realm of politics.

But that's too simple....it assumes women are thinking, feeling human beings.

[K-W]

18. That isnt middle ground, that is your ground.

The other side sees a murder being committed.

It is a significant difference of opinion. But it is a difference of opinion.

[Erika]

20. I agree

I trust the woman to make a decision concerning "her own body" far more than I do the "government".

[Erika]

13. Abortion is not a legal problem

to be resolved by enactment of laws that will force desperate women into backroom abortions (or the to be teenage father killing the fetus by beating the stomach of the mother with a bat).

It is not a problem that will be resolved by abstinence teaching.

It is a problem that can be resolved by education, and the funding of the education, about pregnancy and how to prevent pregnancy. Bush wants nothing to do with this option so I don't know how much progress can be made in this area.

Above all, the health and welfare of the woman is primary. I was shocked when I found out Bush's DOJ is not giving guidelines on the treatment of rape victims to include the morning after pill. The "government" has determined that the pill could be dangerous to the woman or permit an abortion.

Can you believe we've ended up in the dark ages?

[DELUSIONAL]

17. No -- the issue is control

Who controls a women's body?

[TheFarseer]

28. But does she control the child in her?

Is it a child yet? When does life begin? You may say at birth, others may say at conception, others might say when it's a viable living organism. It's not as easy as all that.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[TheFarseer]

43. so...........

is it accurate to say you don't see a compromise :)

[Warpy]

38. Who cares?

It's self defense.

Women will get unsafe abortions if fools outlaw safe ones.

End of discussion.

[seventythree]

42. not life, but being

A kidney is human life, with all the dna needed for cloning or replication, but it is not a human being. Science recognizes that a human being exists at viability, around 24-26 weeks. Before viability, you are in the realm of theology -- does a fetus have a soul?

[Yupster]

63. I think that's where the compromise is 73

I bet a law outlawing abortion after fetal viability except for a serious threat to the life of the mother would get overwhelming support.

[housewolf]

70. You might want to check...

But I believe this IS the law...

That's why the Late Term Abortion Law (so-call "Partial Birth Abortion") was such a bogus issue. It's an extraordinary procedure and requires serious justification (like the health of the mother) to have a late-term abortion.

But the religous right even refuses the "health of the mother" clause.

[gollygee]

76. But who decides what "fetal viability" and "serious threat to the mother"

mean?

Once it's a law, legislators and lawyers decide.

If there isn't a law, doctors and women decide.

[seventythree]

95. not necessarily.

Senator Durbin had a compromise proposal when the late-term stuff came up last year -- if memory serves me correctly, for a late term abortion a panel of docs would have to determine that there was a SERIOUS threat to the health of the mother. The argument, as you no doubt know, is individual docs make the determination of a health consequence if there is the least adverse impact. His was an excellent compromise, but it didn't get anywhere.
As for viability -- we know when that is, and for safety, since there was just a 24 weeker that lived, I believe the youngest ever, we might have to shave a few weeks, say determine viability to be 22 wks -- at least until science reaches the point that younger ones can be saved.
I think late term abortions are probably the only place where there is fertile ground for compromise. I don't want unfettered access after viability, but would have been ok with Durbin's proposal, even though I think that when one is that far along, any exception should be limited to life of the mother. Since I am not a doc, I'd compromise to serious health consequence established by a panel.
So far, I have never heard of a situation when delivering late term
would jeopardize the life of the mother more than a late term abortion and I am not so sure one can determine a serious health impact from a delivery at that point, either. Using late term abortions because the fetus is fatally compromised, to me, is not justifiable, but that is what it is most often used for. One can make an argument that the child will die shortly after birth anyway, so why put the parents through it and add to the medical costs. Although I understand and sympathize, I just can't go that far.

[gollygee]

100. I'd be unhappy with your compromise

You're defning viability as how young a fetus can be delivered and saved with extreme life-saving equipment and personnel. Not everyone would define it that way.

Parents often don't know if a fetus has defects until after 22 weeks. I'd want the option to abort if I were carrying a fetus with severe defects, regardless of how it might or might not impact my health. And I would want to make that choice with my husband. I wouldn't want anyone else involved.

I know someone who would have potentially had serious health consequences if she'd delivered instead of having an abortion because of the specific defect the fetus had. Those kinds of risk choices need to be made by the families involved, not by you, a court, a legislative body, or even a panel of doctors not personally known by and chosen by the woman involved.

Who would make sure that anti-abortion doctors weren't chosen for the panel?

[seventythree]

112. a good point for consideration

I believe a panel could be comprised, as a jury is comprised to exclude those who have difficulty with a death penalty case. Those docs who have moral compunctions against abortion could be excluded as it is a possible outcome of the deliberation. I think viability is defined, scientifically, as the capability of living outside the womb, even with extraordinary assistance. Even a 9 month healthy infant needs assistance to eat.

On the late term abortion for a severely compromised infant concern, I,personally,just can't go there, although I recognize that there is little different in that decision from a family deciding to "pull the plug" -- maybe I need to think about it some more. An early term abortion does carry less risk than carrying a pregnancy, but in all the research this discussion has brought in another chat room I participate in, no one has ever been able to come up with scenarios for late term where abortion is safer than late term delivery or c-section. You would need to fill me in on the details of your friend, since I am ignorant of any situation.

[gollygee]

123. That's the political definition of viability

needing assistance to eat is a far cry from the measures used to save micro-preemies. I don't think there is any unbiased scientific definition. Some would use yours, some would say when a baby can survive outside the womb as well as a healthy baby born at 9 months. I have no idea what a fair unbiased defintion would be, if one is possible.

I think politics would naturally be involved in the formation of any panel of this nature. It would almost certainly end up being comprised of people who are opposed to abortion. How could that be avoided? Who would decide who would be on the panel? Would that person be an elected official or appointed by an elected official?

There is a type of birth defect where the fetus' head swells to several times a normal size. It is impossible for a woman to vaginally birth a fetus like this, so a c-section would be necessary. But to perform a c-section on a uterus swelled to that extent makes the uterus less stable for future pregnancies. There is potential in future pregnancies for the uterus to rupture, which can cause both maternal and fetal death.

Later term abortions are almost always for wanted fetuses. These are women who want a baby so it's likely there will be a future pregnancy.

[seventythree]

133. in the example,

hydrocephali?, late term abortion by collapsing the skull to allow a vaginal delivery would be allowable as it would meet the criteria for serious impact on the mother's health, I believe. I would need to learn more, as I would think the expanding skull could be diagnosed fairly soon, and I have to speculate, that a c-section would no more compromise the womb than any c-section would at a term delivery, and we all know how prevalent c-sections are. I would need to read some medical literature.

[LisaLL]

143. cesareans

I'm an OB and have to correct your speculation

Actually, the kind of cesarean done does compromise future pregnancies. The usual type of incision is transverse.

Classical incisions (done up and down) on the uterus are done for several reasons. If a pregnancy is premature, there is often not room to incise transversely because of the uterine blood vessels are on either side and are too close (and will bleed profusely if cut). If a classical incision is made, there is significant risk for uterine rupture in future pregnancies. Uterine rupture can occur prior to labor or during labor and can result in death to the woman and fetus.

[seventythree]

93. housewolf is accurate

[Mugsy]

103. "Viability" with no distinct date is too vague to pass.

The age a fetus can be considered "viable" by your definition isn't practical. Medical science is constantly pushing the age of "viability" to ever earlier dates, and any such law could not keep up with technology.

An 8oz premmie was nursed to health the other day to full birth weight.

"Viability" can not be so loosely defined (see my earlier post).

[seventythree]

114. none younger than 24 weeks

I don't believe, have survived, which is why I thought you could do a cut-off of 22. I agree that as medical science pushes the time back, adjustments will have to be made, but, again, to my knowledge, 24 weeks has been it for a long time.

[TheFarseer]

22. I've heard

no abortion unless the life of the mother is in danger, rape, incest, or the child is deformed etc. as a compromise from some republican friends. I think that comes up a little short but it's not a bad starting point for a reasonable discussion. I really have to agree that abortion should not be used in place of birth control. Sorry if people don't agree with me. I wish we could all sit down, be reasonable, and hammer out a permanent decision on this issue. I hate the idea that this issue could pendulum back and forth based on the latest elections for the balance of our lives. We should get some finality on this and move on as a country.

[Erika]

26. What part of a woman's right

to privacy don't you understand? Do you think men play any role in this? There wouldn't be pregnant women if a man exercised his self control and only fathered children with women who he checked out and trusted.

[TheFarseer]

32. I'm not sure exactly what you are saying.

When you talk about men having self control, you're talking about ideals not reality. If people had enough self control, anyone wanting an abortion would be VERY rare. Stories of NBA players fathering children with 10 different women disgust and sadden me, and stories of random losers that can't pay child support having children with 10 different women REALLY sadden and disgust me, but women have the children, and that's just reality. Personally, I'm a big fan of women who want to be sexually active taking birth control, and if that needs to be government funded, so be it. It's cheeper than welfare, prisons, etc for unwanted children.

[Erika]

46. Fine the NBA players

for not using condoms. They got the $. Let's start legislating reproductive rights and responsibilities to men.

[housewolf]

71. Haven't you ever heard of birth control failure?

Condoms that leak, diaphrams that leak, spermicide that fails, contraceptives that fail, cycles off-schedule?

[saracat]

39. We have finality on this. It is Roe V.Wade . It is

the law of the land and the RW zealots can't accept it. This has already been decided. Why is it being re fought? Abortion is NOT used as birth control in many instances if at all. That is a RW talking point.Do you know they also view any form of birth control pill as an abortion as well? The beginning and end of the story is no one has a right to an opinion of what is done to my body but me.

[truthpusher]

48. We have finality...

...but at what cost...we are losing to many elections...we got to start showing we care about those who believe differently.

[saracat]

60. At what cost? You think it is okay to give up the

rights to your own body in order to win an election? Why should anyone have to do that? Would you also have women give up the vote or reinstitute slavery to win? Or what about men not having the right to surgery of any kind unless a wife or female relative approves it? Okay with that? If men agree to give up their rights to win an election , I will agree to talk about mine. Otherwise, this is a ridiculous conversation!

[truthpusher]

75. Yikes - I didn't say any of that - read my other posts before you..

..say anymore. I am in full agreement with you. I'm just talking about an attitude to wards communication. What you posted is a perfect example of defensive dialog that turns off the voters. There are thousands of people who voted Bush strictly on the abortion issue...these people need to be educated by people who understand the issue...we don't get to a level of understanding by disrespecting somebody because of their religious beliefs, we educate them on how their religious beliefs are in line abortion-rights. I am not trying to argue, I think threads that break-down into shouting matches are a shame. We need to discuss this with an open-mind to help bridge an ever-increasing gap of misunderstanding.

[Scout]

113. NO, they need to start showing THEY care about those who

believe differently.

If their God is so against abortion, they should just shut the fuck up and let Him deal with the sinners Himself.

[TheFarseer]

55. I sort of agree with that

but I think it would be better if it wasn't just a court decision. That just makes the other side fight to pack the courts. I really think we will be fighting over this until there is a constitutional amendment - NOT while bush is in office hopefully! As a Catholic, I'm well aware that they consider birth control and masterbating as abortion and I completely reject that. I think only priests and 6 people in Utah believe that. As a side note - I can't blame you for supporting abortion on demand. I think any woman that wants to take away her own rights is crazy.

[Nobody]

84. Let's take this point a little farther

"I've heard no abortion unless the life of the mother is in danger, rape, incest, or the child is deformed etc. as a compromise from some republican friends"

I agree with you that your friends' opinion comes up short. Here's my take on it. Again, the following comments are not directed at you in particular but toward these exceptions.

All of these involve allowing abortion under certain conditions. This constitutes a choice being made by somebody. Who is that somebody?

Is that somebody the woman? Or is that somebody the state, or a group of certified abortion approvers without whose notarized forms filled out in triplicate you can't abort? That last one is a bit facetious, but some people would actually want to go that far to prevent just one irresponsible woman from aborting.

Let's look at the exceptions one at a time:

Life in danger: This is subjective. A doctor may tell you, don't get pregnant again, you probably won't make it through delivery. A doctor might say, your fetus died and if we don't remove it now, there a good chance you might not survive. Or a doctor might say, due to your physical condition you've got an x percent chance of dying during delivery.

Where is the line drawn? I don't suppose anyone would want someone else to make a decision like that for them. Would we trust the woman enough to make her own decision without input or approval from strangers?

Rape and Incest: Both of these are horribly traumatic experiences. Not even abstinence will protect you from the diseases you might get, the physical and mental scarring. How would an exception in these cases work? Rape victims should never be required to make public any medical or police records, whether to society at large or to some board of abortion approvers. The exception sounds compassionate on the surface, but rape is a difficult subject for a survivor to discuss with strangers. And she shouldn't have to.

Deformed child: How much deformity would constitute an allowable exception? Again, is it the woman who decides or is it someone else who gives her permission? Again, her medical records shouldn't be public information.

Enforcement: How would society make sure that abortions are being done for the right reasons? Would we assume that they are and leave the women alone? Or would there be uterus police checking up on pregnancies? Who would pay for this?

What would happen if a woman wanted an exception for life of mother and was denied and she died while giving birth? Now we're entering lawsuit territory. Who gets sued? The doctor? The board of abortion approvers? Both?

How do we enforce the exceptions clause WITHOUT implying that women are just incubators with community property uteri and no sovereignty over their own bodies?

These are some of the questions I'd like to see addressed by those who oppose abortions but who do allow for exceptions.

Your post did have the best lead in to these kinds of questions and I'm curious to see how they'd be answered by people like your friends.

[LisaLL]

148. excellent analysis

Nicely argued!

[Nobody]

152. Thanks

Your posts have always been informative as well.

[Lexingtonian]

24. probably not

The verdict in Roe v Wade says bluntly that there is stuff of no public purview in American life and outside the Constitution, i.e. covered by a virtual 'right to privacy'.

Either the state ('government') has a right to dictate to a woman what to do or not do with a pregnancy, or it doesn't. There isn't any intermediate there, logically.

[SillyGoose]

25. Yes, there is a middle ground...

it is called adoption.

[Erika]

27. Education and prevention is the answer

Forcing a woman to become chattel under the government and invading her privacy by telling her she must bear a child is not a middle ground.

[SillyGoose]

45. Chattel? WTF?

Who said anything about forcing a woman to bear a child?

Adoption IS a choice as is abortion.

[chefgirl]

64. It's an option yes, but

It's only a 'choice' if the woman has the right to choose otherwise.

-chef-

[politicat]

41. No. You obviously don't know any adoptees or women who have

given up children. It's FAR MORE traumatic for all involved. Adoption can and does damage both the child who is given up and the woman who does the giving up. Even the adoptive parents can be damaged, wondering if their child will resent them or want to leave them at some later point. Abortion leaves a sense of loss of potential for most women; giving up a child for adoption leaves her with a sense of loss of an actual person, and self-loathing that she could do so.

Then, there's the selling factor that goes with adoption. It's a business, a trade in human flesh. It may be all prettied up, but you got to be rich to do it; the average adoption costs 10 to 25 grand. Poor, infertile couples can't adopt; they don't make the money, they don't have the right home life, they don't have what the social workers want. It's far more like the slave trade than most people realize. Young women are pressured into these draconian agreements even today, and everyone around them is telling them what to do. There is no objectivity in adoption counseling. The child placement specialist usually has too great a stake in placing a child with a family that's paying to give much attention to the bio-mother who may have doubts. In many adoption circles, the bio-mother is little more than the biblical vessel.

Adoption is not a middle ground.

Besides: we have 1 million abortions a year. We have 600,000 kids in foster care. We have 75,000 approved adoptive homes and another estimated 100,000 families going outside the US to adopt because they can't get an infant or toddler in the US. That's 175,000 potential homes.

Please explain, in multiple paragraphs, what you plan to do with the other 825,000 babies born each year if abortion were not allowed and adoption, the middle ground, was? Are we bringing back orphanages? That's pretty much what group homes are now, but without the title. Or are we going to have a national baby lottery, where 825,000 homes get a kid dropped on their doorstep, whether they want one or not? Or do we go back to the 19th century, stop vaccinating for measles and chicken pox and rubella and scarlet fever and let these diseases carry off a quarter of the children? Let starvation take another quarter, and throw them to work at age 12, to join gangs and support themselves with prostitution and gambling? What would you do? How do we pay for it?

Say we do bring back state and federal orphanages: Please remember, these institutions will be producing 825,000 people without religious indoctrination because no state or federal institution can force religion upon anyone. This would be the fastest way to a purely secular society possible. (Hey... this mightn't be a bad idea....)

And of course, there better be an increase in federal Pregnancy Police funding. Because it's going to take 6 big burlies to make me pee on a stick.

[truthpusher]

51. Wow n/t

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[gollygee]

78. I think the point is

that adoption is an option but if abortion is illegal it won't be an option - it will be a necessity - and the adoption industry isn't able to absorb all the babies who would be created if abortion were illegal and adoption were made the alternative.

Adoption is a good alternative when everyone involved is actively and freely choosing that option. It would be a bad thing to force adoption on women in crisis pregnancies. It would also be a bad thing to have hundreds of thousands of children who are not wanted be born every year when there will not be hundreds of thousands of families looking to adopt every year. What happens to the other children?

[LisaLL]

90. Which is *least* bad?

Agrred, adoption is not a panacea.

When a woman is faced with a pregnancy without the means to raise a child, there is something wrong with each of the options.

There is something wrong with a woman having to give her baby away to strangers. There is something wrong with having a woman raise her child in poverty. There is something wrong with having a woman raise a child who feels she is not ready to be as good a mother as her children deserve. And there is something wrong with abortion.

The option that is least wrong for each woman varies by situation and the individual and the woman is the best one to know which is least wrong for her. Some women are personally and viscerally opposed to having an abortion. In the same way, some women are personally and viscerally opposed to giving away their babies in adoption. That's one reason why women will risk their lives obtaining illegal abortions.

[Yupster]

65. I know some adoptees

None of them ever mentioned that they wished they were aborted instead.

[0007]

99. How many adoptees is that? 50 or 60 or more?

[eallen]

29. Compromise requires a modicum of rationality.

In a rational world, people could talk about both respect for the developing fetus and respect for the woman's autonomy. Such discussion might lead to drawing a line that neither totally banned abortion nor permitted it unfettered any time prior to birth. Such a compromise might be to maintain it as a legal right in the first trimester, allow it only in the case of severe medical complications in the third trimester, and do something in between in the second trimester. And in fact, Roe v. Wade is exactly such a reasoned compromise in the context of Constitutional law.

The problem is that the religious right is neither rational nor willing to compromise. They have decided that the embryo gets a soul from God sometime during fertilization, and that that is all there is to the matter.

[TheFarseer]

34. Here's a compromise for the religious right:

Baptize the baby and then kill it so it can go to heaven. (no that's not a serious suggestion)

[seventythree]

36. applause!!!

At what point the soul enters the human form is a theological question, and because it is, I have always felt that Roe should have been founded, in part, on freedom of religion. The religious right with their belief that the zygote has a soul could succeed in banning all but barrier birth control since all others are abortifacients.

[saracat]

40. Agreed!

[rfrrfrrfr]

50. The middle ground is called.

Pro-choice.

Being pro-choice means exactly what it says. That you the individual have the right to choose based upon your personal religeous and moral beliefs on whether or not getting an abortion is right for you or your partner.

You can be the most vociferous anti-abortion person in the world and be pro-choice because for you your choice is no abortions You just have to aknowledge that your philosophy is not shared by everyone. All too often, as we have on so many other things, we let the right wing use their propoganda machine to label pro-choice people as abortion loving baby killers.

The pro-life movement is nothing more than a backdoor route to entangling our government with a particular brand of religeous fundamentalism.

[eallen]

83. In fact, the religious right wants to ban the pill.

Their fantasies would do not end of harm, if allowed to carry the day.

[seventythree]

98. this is true

I have long advocated that the truth of the pill be told -- for two reasons --1) women who have strong religious convictions about abortion will suffer anguish if they are not told the truth and take the pill; they have a right to informed consent 2) for many anti-choicers, the specter of having the only convenient and most effective form of birth control banned, will send them right over to the pro-choice position. Suddenly they will "get" what it means to be able to have the control of one's reproduction/body/intimate relationships NOT in the hands of the government. I can't tell how passionately I argued this point with pro-choice advocacy groups in the 1980's. They worried that the truth would endanger the free access to the pill, and really didn't care if the anti-choice women knew they were aborting against their will. I found this attitude shameful.

[catzies]

49. When you say

"...respect the views of one group without compromising the rights of another... YOU ARE PRO-CHOICE. That is all.

[RafterMan]

53. Yes

There is a middle ground.

[ThorsHammer]

54. Potential win-win solution?

This applies to the real pro-life people, not the vocal 'pro-birth' ones, who'll never be happy. My idea would be to address the causes of abortion and try to make them very rare. I'd favor better sex ed (ie abstinence is the only risk-free method, but if you have sex please use protection), free and available contraception, RU 864 (?, not sure on the name, it's that morning after pill), etc. On a broader scale, we need to address healthcare, the economy, living wages, and education. An approach like this could please the true pro-lifers due to the greatly reduced number of abortions, while still not compromising the pro-choice side.

[Erika]

57. I totally agree

But spending $ to improve living conditions, sex education, and social assistance, is not high on Bushies agendas. In fact, it's not even on their radar.

Denigrating women and passing laws to uphold their fundamentalist views is the Bushie theme. As I said they've even eliminated mention of the morning after pill in cases of rape. Taliban 2.

[ThorsHammer]

58. That's kinda where I'm going with this

If the Democratic party can sell itself to the true pro-life folks (again, not the 'pro-birth' types who want a complete ban), while still not compromising the pro-choice base, they could win easily. The hard part is getting the message across, as the far right has dominated the pro-life side. If even just a small percent are willing to listen how (potential) Democrat policies can cut down abortions greatly, it could tilt the elections away from the far right. There has to be someone who can pitch this idea in a way that people will understand.

[LisaLL]

85. careful

Be careful with this.

emergency contraception is also called the morning-after pill. Plan B is the most common. This prevents pregnancy. It doesn't cause abortion.

RU-486 is used for medical (nonsurgical) abortion.

Some pro-life groups are trying to blur the distinction between the two in order to dissaude people form using/accepting emergency contraception. As a result, lots of people have some confusion about this.

As a fellow pro-Prevention person, I agree with the need to state and continue to state our goals in healthcare, economy, education--building our communities *for* families.

[ThorsHammer]

92. I actually agree with you

I'm pro-life, but also pro-pill, as my understanding is that it prevents viability. Like you said there is a lot of blurring and confusion going on, which is why I think the DP needs to make its message clear. It will take a good, clear message with a good spokesperson, but I do think it is possible to attract pro-life people without giving in on the pro-choice side.

[LisaLL]

134. also agree

>It will take a good, clear message with a good spokesperson, but I >do think it is possible to attract pro-life people without giving in >on the pro-choice side.

I agree. This is one of my goals. Forcing people to have the real debate and uniting the reasonable folks under a pro-Preventing unintended pregnancy, pro-health and safety Platform.

[Liberty Belle]

59. Not really. The key is education.

There's a stereotype that abortions are only sought by promiscuous single women.

As you yourself have noted, married couples sometimes face this decision, too. What if your wife had an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy? Without an abortion, tubal pregnancies are fatal for the mother, but there's no way for the baby to survive, as the fallopian tube bursts in the early stages of pregnancy. 1 in 50 pregnancies in the US is ectopic.

What if a mother needs radiation therapy for cancer, but this would harm the fetus?

What if the mother is single, or a widow, and already has more children than she can afford to care for adequately? Is it wrong for her to put her existing children's needs first?

What about rape victims? Or the young girl victimized through incest by a relative? The morning after pill, which keeps a fertilized egg from implanting, is considered abortion by some, but I'd consider it a kindness to prevent more trauma to women already victimized by violence.

Suppose the baby has a birth defect so serious that it can't possibly have a decent quality of life--such as a fetus with no brain stem, for instance?

As for the promiscuous single woman, supposed she really is as irresponsible as the stereotype contends. What kind of mother would she be if you force someone like that to give birth? Adoption is an option, but she might keep the child and wind up being abusive or neglectful.

What if she's a drug addict? Do we really want to force her to bring a drug-addicted baby into this world?

That said, I do think most of us would hope that abortions, when needed, could be done at the earliest possible stage. That's why throwing up roadblocks like parental consent or requiring court orders are bad ideas, because they delay until the pregnancy is much farther along. There was a story last week about a teen who asked her boyfriend to hit her with a baseball bat to cause an abortion, because she was afraid to tell her parents and the judges in her state are conservatives not likely to okay an abortion. If she did ask and her parents said no, she might've been forced to have a baby she didn't feel ready to have.

Much hoopla has been made over partial-birth abortions (which isn't a medical term, by the way). But these procedures are extremely rare, typically used only in a dire emergency when a mother's life is in immediate danger.

There are a million other "what ifs." With so many grey areas, I choose to err on the side of protecting mothers--and their existing families.

I will tell you about the first woman I ever met who faced the abortion dilemma. She changed my mind forever. I was 18, working a minimum wage job, when Katya got off a bus, came into the store and pleaded for a job. She had bruises on her face from where her husband had last beaten her. He locked her in the house and nailed the windows shut. She ran away once, but her parents, Old World Europeans, believed a woman's place is with her husband and drove her back to the tyrant. So the next time she got out, she took the grocery money and hopped a bus to San Diego from LA with only the clothes on her back.

We all felt sorry for her. Our assistant manager loaned her money for a deposit on a small apartment. Some of us loaned her clothes.
But one week later, she keeled over and passed out on the job. We called paramedics and she was rushed to the hospital. There she learned she was pregnant. Tearful, she worried what to do, becuase she had no healthcare benefits (since it was a preexisting condition before she began working at the store), no money, and not even a stick of furniture in her place. I would have understood if she'd chosen to end the pregnancy, even then.

But the doctors ordered more tests, and learned she had an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy. That meant she had to have an abortion, or die.
Her baby was doomed either way, as there was no room for it to grow beyond a few weeks. She decided on the abortion, and we, her coworkers, were prepared to help pay for it to save her life. Thankfully, she had a miscarriage before the procedure was done.

I don't think Jesus would've wanted this woman to die, do you? There is nothing Christian in that.

[BurtWorm]

66. No middle ground is possible where absolutes are concerned.

The abortion wars will not abate, in my opinion, until a critical mass of right-to-lifers decide they want to really do something about abortion beyond demonizing and terrorizing women who choose to abort their pregnancies. Their absolutist stance may make them feel all holy and righteous, but it's not doing a damn thing to change the fact of abortion.

[seventythree]

107. let the anti-choicers pay for the unwanted children

I recognize this is fantasy thinking with the current make-up of Congress, but ... have a check box on the income tax which says -- I wish my tax dollars to support unwanted children who might otherwise be aborted. Take the cost of support, determined by social services costs for children in state care eligible for adoption, reduce it by medicaid match for abortion, and then divide it out for those who have checked the box and add it to their tax bill the following year. Those folks have their conscience assuaged by knowing that they are not supporting abortion, but also realize the cost they need to bear for their position.

[Cats Against Frist]

67. There will never be a compromise

because, even though I'm not a fan of absolutes, in this case, it is literally "life or death." You can decorate it or dress it down as much as you want, but that's really the only "truth" that there is in the argument. Everything else is COMPLETELY arbitrary. From the soul to the ninth and tenth amendments to trimesters and rapists, everyone can pick their made-to-order solution for abortion.

The reason that I don't think there will be a compromise is that many of the pro-lifers, due to their superstitions, are not capable of joining in a rational discussion. Like everything else that has to do with the fundies, their position is so riddled with hypocrisy that it's hard to take them seriously, and hard to engage them in a REAL conversation about life or death, instead of their pre-scripted hoke, conveniently layed out for them not in congruence with Christ, but that of patriarchal, Westernized, Social Darwinists and nationalists. The political Christ.

Take killing all those innocent kids in Iraq: But it's protecting us! Hey, dumb fundie, you just added a condition, and I can add mine, and Joe Bob can add his, etc.

All of life is not sacred -- like frozen embryos and retarded people who don't know any better -- not even those who become the most delusional evangelicals themselves are safe.

Another hypocrisy: people have mentioned the fact that they don't give a rat's ass about children who have been born. I concur -- and they particularly don't give a rat's ass if the child is black or retarded, because most young children up for adoption in America are either handicapped or black. Funny how the white babies get snatched up. All life is sacred, indeed.

And their puritanical way of dealing with sex only contributes to the problem -- and their blind eye turned toward the machinations of capitalism, while focusing heavily on gays and wombs, assure that all of our children will be further titillated and indoctrinated into early sexual activity by the advertiser.

So, basically, they can get a really rational "fuck off" from me, until they are able to come to the table and participate in the discussion as adults and not sentimental, superstitious, irrational, clueless ding-a-lings.

Anyway, eternal return and all -- the devotees of the power structure and its right hand, the corrupt church will always be with us. They're the same people who burned witches at the stake and tried to stop all of modernity from taking place. Read some C.S. Lewis, Thomas Howard or Gerhart Niemeyer, if you don't believe me. Their worldview is carved out, and it doesn't include compromise.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

68. Social programs, education, living wage and empowerment of women

Those would reduce the need for abortion greatly.

Social programs that ensure viable care for all babies and mothers.
Education on birth control methods.
The possibility that a single parent can feasibly raise a child, if needed.
Affordable safe child care


All those things being available would reduce SOME of the need or desire for abortion.

It COULD really be safe rare and legal.

[truthpusher]

151. Imagine the millions spent....

...on fighting for and against the issue, being laid on the table and used for the exact reasons you mentioned. I bet there would be a 30% drop in unwanted pregnancy within the next 5 years.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[KT2000]

72. the middle ground

is that every pregnant woman is free to do as they choose. As citizens it is our duty to respect that woman's decision.
No on would ever be forced to have an abortion.

[housewolf]

74. I don't see a compromise

because the sides are arguing different issues.

The anti-abortion side is arguing that abortion is murder and a civil society outlaws murder.

The pro-choice side argues that "it's my body, I have a right to make the decisions that affect it".

You can compromise on issues if you are talking about a single issue, but this is two different issues.

It is possible for each side to totally understand and even respect the other side's premise and still hold to whichever one carries a higher importance to them.

[Nobody]

77. Accessible and affordable birth control

And ACCURATE information about birth control methods.

Including how to use properly, how effective it is, how to combine methods to improve effectiveness.

Heaping judgement on those who have sex is counterproductive. Most people will have sex at least once.

Advocating abstinence only education is counterproductive. This leads conceptions due to contraceptives not being used or being used improperly.

Putting misinformation on state sponsored websites is counterproductive. As is scaring people with lies. In my state, the Health and Human Services Dept has literature every woman seeking an abortion is required to read. Some of the information is downright wrong. It says that you'd be at higher risk for breast cancer after an abortion, yet there have been studies that debunk this, conducted by reputable researchers. The HHS dept is extremely partisan and has an anti-choice axe to grind.

I'd like to see a decrease in unplanned pregnancies. As a society, let's not be so puritan about sex and birth control. There are so many people who oppose allowing a woman to make her own decisions about her body and her family yet they also oppose preventing unplanned pregnancies.

Assuming that a woman is an autonomous human being throughout her life from birth to death goes a long way in finding that middle ground. Treating all people, men and women, like thinking people and giving them complete and accurate information about contraception will help.

Babies have been seen as punishment by too many people for a long period of human history. Prior to the 20th century, a common piece of advice given to husbands of women who had interests that didn't include home, husband, family, church was this gem: Get her pregnant. With a baby she won't have time to mess about with unwomanly pursuits.

I wonder what kind of parents people who see babies as punishments are.

Preventing unwanted pregnancies will be the best route to take, but there are going to be some people who will strenuously resist it. I refer to those who would advocate keeping information about emergency contraception from rape victims.

[LisaLL]

79. Middle Ground: Preventing Abortions by using what works to do so.

Middle Ground: Preventing Abortions by using what works to do so. Actually, we (pro-choicers) are already working on this. We need to be better at staing our values on this issue.

No woman wants to be in a position in which she is pregnant and does not have the means to raise a child. The most effective way to reduce abortions is to prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place. Understanding why women have abortions and what is effective in preventing pregnacy is essential to preventing abortions.

It is an enormous responsibility to be a good parent. It is because women recognize this, value children, and want to be the best parent they can be that they use contraception to prevent pregnancies and turn to abortion if pregnancy occurs. This is why they will risk their lives to do so when abortion is illegal: Defending their children.

Abortion is related to pregnancy unwantedness which is determined by fertility and resources. To reduce abortions, we can change a few of these factors. As a society we can reduce unwanted fertility by maximizing women's access and ability to use contraception to avoid pregnancies. As a society, we can improve family resources by supporting social safety nets and investing in communities. It is unlikely that we will be able to influence a woman's desire to protect and defend her ability to take care of her children.

Making abortion illegal does not eliminate abortion. It doesn't even impact the incidence of abortion. It just makes it more likely that women will be injured and killed. In a nutshell: prevent pregnancies, improve resources, protect health and safety by keeping abortion legal. Rare, safe, legal. If a pro-lifer believe that abortion is murder and if their goal is reducing abortions, they should be able to recognize the benefit of reducing abortions by utilizing what works.

[LisaLL]

80. Our pro-Prevention, Pro-health and safety Platform

Our pro-Prevention, Pro-health and safety Platform.
(posted originally on another thread but, I think, useful)


I agree that "choice" and "autonomy" as arguments do not speak to anyone who is not already pro-choice. I think we need to reframe this in terms of our progressive values. We support our policies because we value empathy, responsibility, the health and safety of women and children, honesty in problem solving.

1. No woman wants to be pregnant when she does not have the means to raise a child. Because we value empathy and responsibility, we treat that woman with empathy and we take responsibility to help ensure that we reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancies.

2. We value honesty and effective problem solving. Preventing pregnancies is the most effective way to reduce abortions. Legal restrictions do not reduce abortions, the only increase the number of women dying. We support the policies that are effective in preventing pregnancies.

3. Becaue we value life, we find it inappropriate to deliberately increase unintended pregnancies, STDs, and abortions to serve as punishment for women having sex we don't approve of. This is what the pro-lifer organizations are doing with their policies and it is immoral.

4. Earlier abortions are safer, less difficult, and more ethically desirable than later term abortions. That's why we support measures that allow women having abortions to obtain them earlier (support funding for women who need to delay in order to save money, oppose waiting periods, oppose parental consent because it results in more later term abortions, support earlier prenatal diagnosis when possible). One of our primary goals is preventing pregnancies. Another goal is making sure that the abortions that occur happen earlier.

5. As progressives we support what is most effective in preventing pregnancies and lowering abortion rates. Comprehensive sex ed (about contraception and abstinence), access to contraception and emergency contraception, and improving social safety nets and community assets so it is easier for women to raise their children in healthy environments.

6. Second trimester abortions to protect the life and health women are still necessary. As are abortions for fetal conditions. These decisions are best made by physicans who are trained in pregnancy complications and have managed life-threatening medical situations. To have these decisions made by lawyers with no knowledge about the issue is ill-advised and dangerous.

7. Reveal that pro-life organizations and spokespersons oppose *all* of the measures that are effective in preventing pregnancies and abortions, support measures that increase pregnancies and abortions and impair the safety and health of women. Their policies *increase* the risk of preg, abortion, STDs, and make the consequences of each more deadly. They do this because they feel that punishment is necessary to teach the lesson that nonprocreative sex is wrong. Increasing abortions, to them, is a justifiable loss in teaching this lesson. Increasing abortions and increasing deaths of women as a tool is not acceptable to progressives because we value life more than that.

8. Furthermore, the pro-life/pro-Prevention organization positions are not founded on the science and usually founded on lies and misrepresentations. Honesty would be harmful to their cause. I believe people have the right to argue against abortion. However, they do not have the right to lie about what the science shows to bolster their cause.

Democrats do far more to reduce pregnancies, prevent abortions, protect the health and safety of women, and use honest and scientifically accurate information to back their policies. Why would anyone who cares about the issue of abortion *not* vote for Democrats

[noonwitch]

81. No compromise possible

It's an all or nothing thing. You cannot legally ban abortion with exceptions. Who decides which women are considered exceptions? The doctor? The court system? Any alleged pro-lifer knows that making exceptions for rape and incest is a smokescreen to convince voters. In practice, very few exceptions will be made, and those exceptions will generally be made for middle and upper class women with insurance.

There are very few circumstances in which I would consider an abortion (mainly, in the case of rape), but if one of them occurred, I would not want to have to prove myself worthy by some legal standard that was written by a bunch of whacko fundamentalists. By the time a criminal rape case came to trial, it'd be time to deliver. And even at that, what are the odds of conviction?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

86. dont have one if you are against it

thats a compromise....

why should there be a compromise to a woman owning her body?

[murielm99]

146. The debate is not really about abortion. It is about control.

Why should we discuss the minutiae of what is right or wrong, what medical procedure should be allowed?

Why should we say education and good health care will solve anything? They could care less about education and health care.

The same people who are anti-abortion are pushing and funding abstinence only education, where they give out false information about condoms and pre-marital sex. These are the people who are encouraging pharmacists to refuse to fill contraceptive and morning-after prescriptions.

They want to control women's bodies, and punish women who do not have sex according to their guidelines.

No. Compromise. Ever.

If you want to re-frame the abortion issue, if you want to point out their errors, go ahead. But no one has the right to expect women to give up their rights so we can win elections.

[Fleurs du Mal]

87. No middle ground here

[LisaLL]

88. Framing and Arguments: Try This Real Abortion Debate

We should not allow them to make this an abortion-bad abortion-good argument. This is not where we want to go, it isn't relevant and it lets them frame the debate.

Reframe:

Abortion occurs in every society and we have two options. We can work to reduce abortions, prevent unintended pregnancies and safeguard women's health (Democratic Policies) or we can choose to increase abortions, increase unintended pregnancies, and impair women's health so that abortion and pregnancy act as punishments for having sex (Republican Policies).

Would you like to reduce abortions by Prevention or would you rather increase abortions so you can Punish people?

[Bridget Burke]

89. Yes. It's called "Choice"....

Continue to work for good sex education & health care.

[Mugsy]

97. YES, there IS a middle-ground. (Not adoption or birth control)

See my post above: (link)
.

[librechik]

105. sure, it's called "choice"

keep your strong beliefs that abortion is wrong FOR ALL--to yourself.
Nobody is making YOU have an abortion.

That's what used to be called the middle ground.

[IntravenousDemilo]

106. Yes...

Let women who wish to have abortions have them, and those who don't want abortions don't have to have them. That's all the compromise needed, I think.

[Scout]

108. Roe v. Wade IS the middle ground. n/t

[yurbud]

109. PRO-CHOICE FIRST TRIMESTER/PRO-LIFE THIRD

The pro-choice argument is strongest for early in the pregnancy, especially early intervention like the morning after pill when you are just aborting a dot of undifferentiated cells. The pro-life people look a little like they are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a needle when they try to call sixteen cells a human life.

The pro-life argument is strongest in the third trimester and after viability. There is a moral truth to the revulsion at torn apart babies that could just as easily have been delivered alive. If you want to get your baby out after viability fine. Pop it any day you want. Just don't kill it. Leave it alive for someone else.




I also have a hard time believing it's better for the health of the mother when a couple of the late methods are essentially comparable to delivering the baby alive.

This might tilt some undecideds, but if the DLC types think this is going to pull evangelicals and hardcore right wingers from the GOP, they are grossly mistaken.

We have room to expand our tent, but this issue isn't going to radically change the number of people in it.

What will is focusing on economic and democracy issues as values.

Big business is anti-democratic and hurts families to make more money.

[gollygee]

110. What late methods are comparable to delivering live?

[yurbud]

115. Did you ever see the diagrams of partial birth?

The baby is mostly delivered in one chunk.

[gollygee]

124. Except the head

which is the hardest part to deliver - thereby making it not comparable.

[yurbud]

128. there is also induced labor and saline

both of which can kick the baby out whole.

[gollygee]

132. Neither of which are done on healthy fetuses in the third trimester.

Women having abortions in the third trimester are doing so out of desperation because of health issues - theirs, the fetus', or both. They haven't just decided they don't want a baby.

[yurbud]

135. If it was the mother's health...

why not induce and do a live birth?

you and I probably agree, but the pro-choice people haven't made this case well because they are unwilling to concede that people have a legitimate reason to concerned about killing a viable baby.

[w4rma]

138. There are situations where that is not an option because it would put the

woman's life and/or limb in jeopardy.

[yurbud]

145. what are the life or limb cases where live birth wouldn't work?

I'm willing to agree with you, but I'd like to know. And you would make a more persuasive argument if you could list some.

[gollygee]

140. If it were just the mother's health

and she got to the third trimester, she WANTS that baby and would do anything to have it alive! She WOULD have the baby born alive if possible.

This idea that people are having recreational abortions and waiting until the third trimester to have abortions they could have in the first and having abortions done in a nastier way than possible just because they like it is ridiculous.

[w4rma]

131. "partial birth" is NOT a medical term.

American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Press Release
For Release: October 3, 2003
Contact: ACOG Office of Communications
[e-mail]

Statement on So-Called "Partial Birth Abortion" Law
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Washington, DC -- The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) continues to oppose so-called "partial birth abortion" laws, including the conference committee bill approved by the US House of Representatives yesterday and sent to the US Senate. "Partial birth abortion" is a non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know as dilatation and evacuation (D&E).

In 2000, the US Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska "partial birth abortion" law in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart, ruling that the law violated the US Constitution by (1) failing to provide any exception "for the preservation of the health of the mother," and (2) being so broadly written that it could prohibit other types of abortion procedures such as D&E, thereby "unduly burdening a women's ability to choose abortion itself." The bill now before the Senate, which its supporters claim can meet any constitutional test, blatantly disregards the two-pronged test the Supreme Court carefully established in Stenberg.

As noted in a 1997 ACOG Statement of Policy, reaffirmed in 2000, and in ACOG's amicus curiae brief filed in the Stenberg case, ACOG continues to object to legislators taking any action that would supersede the medical judgment of a trained physician, in consultation with a patient, as to what is the safest and most appropriate medical procedure for that particular patient.

ACOG's Statement of Policy explains why ACOG believes such legislation to be "inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous." The policy statement notes that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision (emphasis added)."

The Statement of Policy further reads that such legislation has the potential to outlaw other abortion techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. This was the second basis upon which the Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska law in the Stenberg case. The Court will invariably strike down laws that are overly broad or imprecisely drawn. Bills that frequently using terms -- such as "partial birth abortion" -- that are not recognized by the very constituency (physicians) whose conduct the law would criminalize, and that purport to address a single procedure yet describe elements of other procedures used in obstetrics and gynecology would not meet the Court's test.

In this case, the bill before the Senate fails to respect the Stenberg test because bill supporters flagrantly refuse to include an exception for the health of a woman. Instead, legislators try to circumvent the Court's requirements by issuing their own opinion to the nation's physicians and patients that such a procedure is never needed to protect a woman's health -- notwithstanding opposing opinions from the medical community.

The medical misinformation currently circulating in political discussions of abortion procedures only reinforces ACOG's position: in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician -- not legislators -- are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.

# # #
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is the national medical organization representing 45,000 members who provide health care for women.

http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr10-03-03.cfm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=569189

[yurbud]

137. helpful article, but your subject line stinks

using the medical term looks like you are trying to hide something.

In this case, the pro-life terminology is pretty accurate. Most of the baby comes out alive, which is why it's called INTACT D & X.

Playing semantic games doesn't win over undecided people.

The information in this article would though.

It would be good to see examples of cases where the mother's life could only be saved by this procedure as opposed to giving birth through induced labor or a C section.

[w4rma]

141. "Partial birth abortion" is the terminology that anti-abortionists use in

the language of the laws that they write.

In the vast majority of cases where Intact D & X is used, the woman's life IS in jeapordy. That's why it's used. It's used to save the life of the mother in the vast majority of cases.

[yurbud]

144. you have to give them their props

when they have a point. If you use opaque jargon, it looks like you are trying to hide something.

I hope and suspect you are right. I'm talking about persuading others though, not preaching to the choir.

[seventythree]

120. agree

that the late term procedures that I have read about are essentially a delivery

[The White Tree]

122. Well said

Sadly, for most pro-lifers this argument is meaningless, because they beleive life begins at conception. To them even the idea of birth control is anathema.

Curiously, I was just watching a show - Without a Trace that dealt somewhat with this issue. A teenage, high-acheiver who wanted to go to Harvard, got pregnant after a one-time encounter with a boy that she had because she was so overwhelmed by the pressure to succed and (and I am not quoting this correctly but I think the meaning is clear) "wanted to act like a normal person" or something.

She did not realize she was pregnant and went to a free clinic and when she was informed said immediately that she wanted it taken care of. The doctor replied that she couldn't because it was after a certain amount of time. They never elaborated on why that was (health reasons or law reasons). The show is supposed to take place in New York. I wonder if this was based on an actual law.

[CornField]

155. Less than 2% of abortions are performed in the last half of pregnancy

Of those, roughly 99% are performed because the pregnancy is not viable -- that is, no matter what the child is going to die.

[amazona]

111. how can you compromise with MY rights?

There is no compromise with slavery, and forcing me to carry an unwanted child for 9 months is the most invasive form of slavery I can possibly imagine.

Sorry. Women are the majority in this country. If you sell women, then who will you not sell? Who do you hope to win to make up for giving up on women's votes?

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[seventythree]

121. Roe did in the last tri-mester

[yurbud]

130. The "men shut up" argument doesn't win friends and influence people

It may feel good to say it, but it pisses off guys who would otherwise agree with you.

The reality is, whatever men say or do, we can't prevent a woman from terminating a pregnancy if she wants to.

It doesn't hurt you to let guys say their piece, then you can pick apart the argument.

It's really very similar to the Bush approach to the UN and Europe. We ultimately can do whatever the hell we want. But everyone feels better about it if we consult them first.

You aren't giving up any power by letting guys have an opinion, and you could easily gain allies by being gracious instead of dogmatic.

[jonnyblitz]

119. none. n/t

[w4rma]

125. Instead of oppressive laws with oppressive penalties to TRY to control

women having abortions, make social programs, anti-poverty programs and adoption programs available to help people choose another option to abortion.

Anti-abortion laws are about CONTROL. Controling private lives. Instead of trying to control other people, use government programs to CONVINCE other people.

This country doesn't need more oppression and it doesn't need to waste resources on another failed, unwinnable, counter-productive "war" on XXX. And it doesn't need government red tape that doctors would have to spend precious time on to save a patient's life when an aborotion is needed to safe that life.

[youngred]

136. Pro-lifers respecting the choice of others

I myself am Pro-life and wish to see as few abortions performed as possible. I am also Pro-Choice in that I don't believe government has the right to tell you what to do with your own body.

There is however, a middle-ground, but not one many of the more ardent Pro-Lifers will like. It involves keeping abortion legal, but promoting safe sex, abstinence first (but not only) and providing contraceptives to young people. Clinton was right in saying that he'd like to keep abortions "safe, rare and legal." But to do that we have to prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening by encouraging safe sex etc. It's not surprising that the areas with the worst rates of teen pregnancy are where abstinence only education is taught in HS

[ThorsHammer]

150. Yes, that's what I said above

IMO the 'rare' part of what you said is the problem. I think a lot less people would have such strong feelings about it if it were rare. I like your middle ground idea (I had the same idea above), and think it could appeal to the moderate, open-minded, people who are truly life. You're never going to get the 'ardent pro-Lifers' (referred to by some as "pro-birthers"), but some moderates may welcome the message. Abstinence only education has clearly failed. I'm all for teaching it as the only fool-proof method, but we also need to play it safe and teach about contraception as well.

[Behind the Aegis]

142. there is no middle ground

Abortions must be kept legal. There should not be "qualifiers," as this just makes it easier to 'water down' legislation and eventually, outlaw all abortions. Women should always be able to make decisions over THEIR bodies. PERIOD! There can be NO middle ground when the other side refuses to give an inch. Compromise is a two way street, not a word that means "Democrats and fair-minded people cave into the religious right!" There can be NO COMPROMISE! Keep abortions legal and safe!

[Solly Mack]

147. No compromise.

Nothing else to say really.

[Sgent]

149. There can be no compromise...

With the fundamentalist christians.

There point of view is that life starts at conception -- which, according to their bible, is the time that a soul enters the child. Since destroying the "child" is murder, in their view any type of murder is wrong -- be it of the fetus or of the mother during a robbery, they are equal in the eyes of god.

That being said, many church groups and more "libral" conservatives would probably be happy with parental notification, a ban on 3rd trimester, and 2nd trimester abortions except for life/limb of mother.

However, I don't think most democrats would go for that.

[jbm]

154. refocus the issue..

I've never seen any statistics that tie abortion rates to laws, but I've seen plenty that tie abortion rates to poverty. As far as I'm concerned, abortion rates are tied to poverty and poverty is tied to republicans. We reduce poverty by reducing republican influence and all the rest of the arguments are irrelevant.

[truthpusher]

157. sounds good to me n/t