Because it has its own DNA, a fetus is not part of the woman's body

[skjpm]

I define a person as a human being with its own unique DNA. If you were to take a cell from a fetus and clone it, you would not get a twin of the mother, but a twin of the fetus. Therefore, the fetus is its own separate being. This seems a concrete, unarguable way to define a person: a human being with its own unique DNA.

Using that definition, I believe that each person, black, white, gay, straight, deaf, male, female, or unborn, has equal rights under the law. No one has absolute power over the rights of another human being. This is part of the seamless garment of civil rights I fight for as a Democrat.

There are cases in which the unborn's right to life comes into conflict with the woman's right to life. There are many legally difficult times when two humans' rights conflict. Each case must be decided on an individual basis. No law can successfully cover all possibilities.

If a woman has willingly agreed to provide food and lodging for a child, and has provided it without coercion, then she can't simply say to another human being, her child, "I'm kicking you out," whether that child lives in her house or in her body. A father must provide child support; a husband must provide alimony; you can't simply cut someone off that you have pledged to care for. That is a basic civil right that single mothers cry out for with deadbeat dads.


There are many who want to see the Democratic party extend it's fight for civil rights to the unborn, and I am one of them. Prove to me that the woman's and the unborn's DNA are the same, then I might change my mind. Until then--We're here. We're pro-life. Get used to it.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[hector459]

216. Well then, you should have no problem with incubating a fetus OUTSIDE

the mother's body. So what if a mother decided to give up her fetus to be incubated somewhere until it could survive on its own? Instead of abortion just give it up for adoption BEFORE its born. How's that?

[tk2kewl]

2. so a cloned human is the original human and her parent can do

with it what she pleases?

[DrWeird]

3. tumors have their own DNA.

You want to outlaw tumor removal surgery?

[liberalhistorian]

143. LOL!

Excellent point. But better not give these people any crazy ideas, they just might go for it. Who the hell knows with them? Especially when they try to prevent pregnant women they don't even know from undergoing cancer treatment because it "might" harm the fetus, never mind that it would kill the woman if she didn't have it. FUCK THESE PEOPLE!

[GiovanniC]

4. Hey, I'm All For That Idea

As long as the woman can have the fetus taken out of her body any time she wants to. Especially since it isn't a part of her body.

[GumboYaYa]

33. LOL, n/m

[kiki]

182. Good one.

You can keep that beer I gave you, but I'm taking back the glass.

[Ninga]

5. Stay away from my body, and my decisions.

You are entitled to your opinions, and I entitled to mine.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

6. Pro-Choice is NOT Pro-"death" for babies.

[ohkay]

11. That's terrible!

You think this poster shouldn't be allowed here because she doesn't agree with the democratic party on this issue??? what the hell is that? I disagree, very strongly with what she said, but I still think she should be able to say it!! :grr:

[Modem Butterfly]

20. I may disagree with your bumpersticker

But I'll fight to the death for your right to stick it!

[Goldmund]

34. I agree.

[bowens43]

47. Any one who works to oppose the basic beliefs of our party

needs to take a freaking hike. She did say it and she is receiving the appropriate responses.

[Goldmund]

58. And who decides what those "basic beliefs" are?

[bowens43]

65. The overwhelming majority

of our party members.

[Goldmund]

85. That's a recipe for mediocrity.

Note that I'm totally against the viewpoint expressed by the original poster on this thread. But "take a hike" -- if you don't agree with the majority? No. If Iraq war supporters can be Democrats, I don't see why anti-choicers can't be democrats as well. If we lived in a truly pluralistic system, like they have in most countries in Europe, and we had 10 or 20 viable political parties, then we could afford to be unambiguous and definitive about our who should and shouldn't be in our party. But, perhaps unfortunatelly, we don't. The majority view will decide what candidates we put forth, and the minority will live with it or not; most on this very board learned to LIVE with Kerry after having supported people like Dean or Kucinich, for example.

More importantly, this is a discussion board, and more fruitful and dynamic discussions are generated when there are disagreeing parties involved.

[iverglas]

103. hmm; you got one of those constitution thingies?

Mine's a little different (tougher), but yours goes like this:

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Myself, I'd say that unless and until someone can demonstrate that the policy s/he is advocating does NOT violate that provision -- or does not violate it without justification (for which s/he will need to refer to what the relevant courts have said about the matter) -- then s/he is not speaking in a manner consistent with the "basic beliefs" of anyone in the US, or of decent human beings anywhere, actually.

The question I asked in post #38 is just the tip of the iceberg -- who, or what body, is going to decide which women will be compelled to assume a risk to their lives (and to accept a limitation on their liberty) that they do not wish to assume?

Once it's all settled that women must continue all pregnancies that start in their bodies, how are we going to determine who the women in question are? If z/e/fs are to be human beings, how are we as a society going to fulfil our duty to protect their rights?

Will pharmacists have to administer a pregnancy test to any woman who presents a prescription for a medication that she needs in the interests of her own health, but that could interfere with her pregnancy? We'd never let her administer a potentially fatal substance to a five-year-old; how could we not take steps to ensure that she did not do so to her fetus?

Will organizers of skydiving excursions have to do the same? After all, we would never permit people to jump from airplanes with infants strapped to their backs, right?

The notion that human beings have human rights is fundamental to our modern world. It is the most "basic belief" of our human groups, and of all reasonable and decent people.

It's just damnably funny how many people seem to "believe" that pregnant women are somehow excluded from the purview of that notion.

That seems to be a belief that a lot of Democrats just don't share, unfortunately for the anti-choice among them.

[Goldmund]

136. You're preaching to the choir, sista/brotha.

It's just damnably funny how many people seem to "believe" that pregnant women are somehow excluded from the purview of that notion.

It may be damnably funny. But it is also what they believe -- and if you are to argue that this belief is inconsitent with the very basis of American legal system and concept of liberty, then do so, and I will join you. But to simply tell them to "take a hike" because it is inconsistent with some pre-set "basic beliefs" is counter-productive, but also -- infinitely more importantly -- inconsistent with a democratic spirit. And also, I have long ago given up believing that any position I take is somehow intrinsically morally THE correct position and that my perspective is absolute. Paradoxically, you yourself are, if tacitly, supporting my point: you have outlined well-constructed and elloquently expressed arguments to support your position -- a position that I, incidentally, share. You didn't say "yo, take a hike". That's all I was advocating.

[iverglas]

155. I guess my point ...

... was that what the "basic beliefs" in question are is not really an open question. Your "what are those basic beliefs?" question can only be seen as rhetorical.

I see no difference between this situation and someone proposing that the Democratic Party advocate racial segregation in the schools, and someone else pointing out that such a policy is contrary to the "basic beliefs" of the Party (and advising the speaker to take a hike, which I imagine most Democrats would do).

The fact that this issue involves women's rights just doesn't make those rights less important or less protected, and nobody's "belief" that those rights are up for negotiation, or for being ignored and violated at will, is entitled to any more respect or sober consideration than anybody else's "belief" about the fundamental rights of any other class of persons.

But to simply tell them to "take a hike" because it is inconsistent with some pre-set "basic beliefs" is counter-productive, but also -- infinitely more importantly -- inconsistent with a democratic spirit.

If there really were any question about what those "basic beliefs" are, or there really were any dispute about the Democratic Party's adherence to them, you'd maybe be right.

But there is nothing at all "democratic" about the advocacy of unjustified violations of anyone's fundamental rights. It is that position that is undemocratic. And I certainly do not regard it as "democratic" to tolerate such advocacy within an organization that is dedicated to protecting the exercise of those rights.

Paradoxically, you yourself are, if tacitly, supporting my point: you have outlined well-constructed and elloquently expressed arguments to support your position -- a position that I, incidentally, share.

And I did so in response (indirectly) to the original poster's complete failure to do any such thing. The original poster merely spewed nonsense and prejudice. Nonsense and prejudice are the antithesis of democratic discourse, which demands honesty and sincerity.

So I actually went above and beyond, in the interests of inciting genuine democratic discourse -- exposing nonsense and dishonesty, in the hope of creating an opening for facts and truth. All I really needed to do, in direct response to the poster, was say "take a hike". ;)

... particularly because I've never yet encountered an anti-choicer who will take up the challenge to engage in genuine democratic discourse ...

[Goldmund]

164. That all depends on where you're drawing the line of what is...

...open for discussion. I, myself, choose to -- or at least attempt to -- draw that line at the lowest point I can; the lower, the better. I agree with you that this is an issue of fundamental rights. But also, I believe that no belief is absolute, including beliefs in what is and isn't fundamental. To him/her, the fetus is a human person, and the right of that person to exist in his/her mind trumps the right of the woman to make decisions about her body -- as a fundamental right. It takes considerable jaw-clenching for me to get these words out of my mouth, since impulsively, I also cannot intellectually accept such a preposition; but based on this preposition, he/she derived that if one is to support human rights, then one must oppose abortion. So then, the discussion of that preposition is the essence of discussing the issue of abortion with that person.

I see no difference between this situation and someone proposing that the Democratic Party advocate racial segregation in the schools.

I don't see the difference either. And that's why I would discuss this as well -- as long as there is a semblance of some common axioms. If the person somehow acrobatically can claim that racial segregation would mean more equality or more human rights or a more equitable society (impossible, I know, but indulge my extreme hypothesis), then there is at least a nominal logical device for discussion; if they are for segregation because they don't want them Negros going to school with their chiluns, then of course, there is no discussion. To sum up: if there are certain qualitative common axioms -- human rights, social fairness, progress, disdain of prejudice and hatred -- some vague common moral skeleton, then the discussion of consistency of any specific issue with that moral skeleton is possible. If someone just hates furriners or something, then you may as well discuss things with a horse -- you share no common mental DNA.

Now, don't get me wrong: I am the last person who will ever aquiesce to the Democratic Party turning into -- or, better said, remaining -- a Republican-lite party. Thus, the question "If you believe X and Y, then why aren't you a Republican?" remains on the table. But as long as the person has a sincere desire to discuss their beliefs, no belief of mine is so fundamental or so sacred as to be assumed axiomatic.

[iverglas]

169. and the question still remains ... ;)

But as long as the person has a sincere desire to discuss their beliefs, no belief of mine is so fundamental or so sacred as to be assumed axiomatic.

Will you find me such a person?

Will you find me someone whose "argument" does not consist of "I believe ...", "I don't like ...", "<insert class of people of your choice> are not nice people ...", "it just isn't right that ..." ...?


If the person somehow acrobatically can claim that racial segregation would mean more equality or more human rights or a more equitable society (impossible, I know, but indulge my extreme hypothesis), then there is at least a nominal logical device for discussion; if they are for segregation because they don't want them Negros going to school with their chiluns, then of course, there is no discussion.

So where are the anti-choicers who claim that outlawing abortion at least does *not* mean *less* equality or *fewer* human rights or a *less* equitable society -- and will stick around to offer facts and argument in support of their claim?

Why are they all the equivalent of the segregationists who don't want their children mixing with the coloureds? Why do their "arguments" never address the REAL and inevitable outcomes of the policies they advocate?

Why does anyone ever let them get away with what they do??

That's what providing them with a forum within an organization that seeks to promote and protect rights without demanding that they engage in that kind of discourse does: it lets them get away with pretending that they are seeking to promote and protect rights, when there is not a shred of evidence or argument on which to base that claim.

*IF* we were ever to encounter an anti-choicer who addressed his/her discourse to the real issues, we would, yes, owe that person a hearing.

This one didn't. This one spewed irrelevant nonsense and "belief". This one, like all the rest of them, has had years, and possibly decades, to come up with a discourse that is appropriate to a forum in which the protection and promotion of fundamental rights is the "basic belief" -- whether that be DU, the Democratic Party or the United States of America in its entirety -- and not a one of them has ever done it.

This one started it -- started the discussion by spewing nonsense and not by claiming that outlawing abortion would mean more equality or more human rights or a more equitable society, let alone by offering any remotely rational or honest basis for that claim. This:

There are cases in which the unborn's right to life comes into conflict with the woman's right to life. There are many legally difficult times when two humans' rights conflict. Each case must be decided on an individual basis. No law can successfully cover all possibilities.

just don't cut it in that respect. It is absolutely no different from someone saying

there are many cases in which white folks' right to keep their children from mixing with black folks comes into conflict with black folks' right to an education of equal quality. There are many legally difficult times when two humans' rights conflict. Each case must be decided on an individual basis. No law can successfully cover all possibilities.

Who here would give such an individual a respectful hearing?

WOMEN'S RIGHTS simply are not any more subject to negotiation or violation than anyone else's, and people who propose to violate women's rights and fail to offer a glimmer of democratic justification for that violation deserve no more respect or tolerance than advocates of legislated racism or any other kind of would-be rights violators.

[Goldmund]

173. I think we've come to an agreement.

Yes, _this_particular_ anti-choicer may not have had the desire for a sincere discussion -- I'm not sure, it is kinda strange to drop this sort of a post on DU 20 minutes before you have to go to work... I think that you were coming from the mindset of more specifically talking about him/her (or, that _kind_ of an anti-choicer), whereas I was being more general (should the discussion of issue X have a place in the Democratic party, or on DU?).

*IF* we were ever to encounter an anti-choicer who addressed his/her discourse to the real issues, we would, yes, owe that person a hearing.

This one didn't. This one spewed irrelevant nonsense and "belief".

Cool. I was still giving him/her the benefit of the doubt to come back and continue after he/she comes back "from work". But if that's all we're discussing -- the inclination of this particular poster -- it's really not that important.

Hey, thanks for the discussion. I dig.

[ohkay]

94. So you want her

To vote for the Republicans? Do you think that's wise? In case you haven't noticed, the Democrats ARE NOT WINNING national elections right now..

[liberalhistorian]

145. If she wants to work

to turn the Democratic party into the Republican-lite party by insisting that the Dems become anti-abortion, then she might as well vote for the repubs. These people have already taken over everything, they're goddamn well not going to take over our party.

[readmoreoften]

171. Yes. I do.

We don't republicans destroying the progressive agenda from within. If you're supporting legislation that ostensibly makes me into a baby factory who is'pregnant until proven not-pregnant' in the eyes of the law then I don't want you near me. If you want me to carry the baby of my rapist to term, then no, you're not with me... you're against me.

I'm a lesbian and I don't want to continually be subjected to having to 'prove' that I'm not pregnant to participate in society, which is what will happen if the government puts women under contract to protect the potential lives of fetuses they don't want.

[Igel]

134. Let's hear it for stasis! n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

49. What makes you think he's a she?

The most virulent anti-choicers are men. The way the poster repeatedly says 'the woman' rather than 'we' or 'us', indicates that the poster is a man who will never have to make this most painful choice himself.

As a male, I think that abortion should be legal, safe, and rare. And I know I will never be faced with the decision to get one, and cannot ever countenance standing between a woman and what she thinks is best for herself.

[saracat]

I'll bet they approve of slavery too!

[liberalhistorian]

141. Yes, she has

every right to say it, no question. And we have the right to express our opinion of her opinion as well. That's the way it works. And my opinion is that if I wanted to be a member of an anti-abortion party, I'd join the goddamn Repubs. We're already under assault in every direction from the right, which is now in control, and too many of them are trying to take over the Dems so as to make our party virtually unrecognizable from the goddamn repubs. And we won't have it.

She and her ilk need to stay the HELL away from MY private, personal life and MY private, personal decisions, PERIOD! WHO THE HELL ARE PEOPLE TO THINK THEY CAN MAKE THESE DECISIONS FOR US? This poster belongs with the repubs if she wants to push that bullshit agenda. We already have the fucking culture cops up our ass and on our ass every day now about everything, we don't need people in our own party to turn into the goddamn repubs doing the same thing.

And if she's so fucking concerned about the unborn, what is her position on programs to aid pregnant women and their children, including the vital issue of desperately needed medical care? What is her position on the so-called "right to life" legislators voting against and shredding every single program to help children and families, INCLUDING COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS AIDING ABUSED, NEGLECTED, AND FOSTER CHILDREN? If you're going to wax eloquent about everyone's "right to life", including the unborn, then you goddamn well need to walk the talk, which is what most anti-abortion idiots refuse to do. They love to spout about rights with their right hand, then take those same rights away with their left hand and I'm fucking damn sick of it. When I was dealing with my own unplanned pregnancy, I ran into people like this all the time. They were all over me until my son was born, then it was goodbye, go away.

"We're here, get used to it", indeed. Bullshit. She can go to the goddamn repubs if that's the way she feels. She'll be a lot more at home there.

[mike_c]

213. right on....

Very spot on rant! :toast:

[rkc3]

7. Could we hold off the flaming until I get a bag of nachos?

[TomClash]

29. I'll get the salsa

[lukasahero]

31. :-)

I'm just going to sit and keep refreshing this page. So far, it's been pretty active. ;-)

[Lindacooks]

176. lol - I'll bring the marshmallows for the s'mores...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. So DNA is the entire basis of your position? Are you kidding me?

A friggin potato has unique DNA. Are you fighting for its rights too?

[TomClash]

28. Wait!

Abort Mr. Potato Head!

[BlueEyedSon]

9. What about identical twins? Do they file one tax return? nt

[smoogatz]

53. One's a person, one isn't--

But which one?

[liberalhistorian]

146. ROFLMAO!

Smackdown!

[judy]

10. Do you know what "stem cells" are?

They are "unmarked" cells, that can adapt to any DNA. This is why stem cell research is interested in studying foetuses.

I won't bother with the rest of the argument, I just hope that "pro-life" means that you also oppose killing of grown human beings of any creed or color, therefore also strongly oppose war and the Death penalty. If this is the case, good for you :)

[BOSSHOG]

12. You "define a person as a human being"

Could you share your medical credentials or are you just waxing philosophical as an English Major? Or is your defining process sincerely based on your "belief" system?

[skjpm]

27. See, this is why the Democrats lose

You are all simply incapable of understanding how someone might have a different way of approaching an issue than you. I have a high post count because I am a lifelong Democrat, who with many others, see us as wrong on abortion. I'm sure Henry Reid would agree with me, as would Tim Roemer. If this is what people like me are going to get when we want to open the discussion about abortion, why should we stay Democrat? Do you want our votes or not?

My reasons for considering the fetus a person are just as logical as your not considering it a person. Who made you God? And the point is, how do you deal with Democrats who disagree with you, and want to move the party into a more pro-life stance? Do you just attack? Or do you listen?

[Sparkly]

39. "how do you deal with Democrats who disagree with you"

If I may, I think the best way is to offer the choice for people to make their own decisions. I respect your "different way of approaching" this issue, but not the idea that your approach should be applied to everyone else.

[liberalhistorian]

154. Exactly, thank you!

That is the biggest problem among many, many problems I have with the repubs is their insistence that THEIR way is the ONLY way. Who is this poster to demand that everyone bow down to what he/she wants and that his/her approach should be applied to and followed by everyone else? That's the way the repubs do it, and I'll be damned if my party is going to turn into the repubs. Dems have much more support than what this poster would indicate; a 3-percentage margin of victory is NOT an overwhelming mandate!

[donheld]

243. This is the basis for my entire abortion, and gay stance

We cannot force our morals on anyone else. If someone feels i am immoral as a gay man that's fine, but they must let me be. If a woman cannot continue her pregnancy that's her business and nobody elses.

[BOSSHOG]

71. Would you reconsider my question?

What are your credentials in making a medical judgement on who is and who is not a human being? I know the basic difference between conservatives and liberals is the difference between knowing and "believing." You can be for or against abortion if you choose; however that choice will disappear if you choose to go elsewhere in the American Political World. I'd rather your "beliefs" not be codified. Unless, of course, your rationalization is based on credentials you have chosen not to share.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[saracat]

107. I don't want to be in a party that thinks a fetus has more rights than I

do. I wouldn't want to be in a party that thought slavery was okay either. If I wanted to be in an anti choice party I would be Republican.We lose because of Republican lite people who support positions like this .We lose because we are not providing a choice.We must show a difference between the parties, not prove there is no difference. There is No other issue today that is more important to defining the rights of a women.How can a womn be even remotely equal if she can't even decide what to do with her own body?
BTW Sandra Day O'Conner wouldn't agree with you. In the opinion she wrote defending Roe she recognized that justice was a two edged sword and you couldn't let the state decide that a woman couldn't have an abortion without at the same time giving them the power to force her to have an abortion. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

[liberalhistorian]

150. I don't listen to Harry Reid or Tim

Roemer or any other male pro-lifer; frankly, nothing pisses me off more than a man who's anti-abortion.

Especially since I actually had the experience of an unplanned pregnancy and having to make that most agonizing of decisions for a woman. I chose not to have an abortion, but I was also glad the choice was available, that it was legal and safe and that I wouldn't have to worry about ending up dead or injured at the hands of a back-alley butcher because of people who think like you. And I couldn't imagine having the government or anyone else stick its/their nose into MY PERSONAL, PRIVATE LIFE AND DECISION, IT'S NONE OF THEIR GODDAMN BUSINESS. That would have made it so much worse. We already have one Big Brother party who's turned everyone into culture cops breathing down our asses about everything, I'll be goddamned if I'll allow my life-long party to turn into repub-lite on this issue.

I'm 40 and have been a Dem all my life, but I swear to God, if they start caving into the culture police and the woman-hating anti-abortion zealots and become nothing more than repub-lite on this issue, I'm out of the damn party. You want anti-abortion, go vote with the fucking repubs where you'll be much more comfortable, I'm sure.

[hollywood926]

152. You're missing the point...who cares about the DNA?

I don't care if it's in the seventh grade, if it's inside MY body, I'll do whatever I want with it.

The point is choice. If you're a woman, you should have it. If you're a man, it's none of your business.

[readmoreoften]

172. Oh THAT'S why DEMOCRATS LOSE?

Democrats lose because they are INTOLERANT and CLOSED-MINDED unlike the Republicans who are OPEN TO DEBATE AND DISSENT? All those right-wing fruitcakes who believe in establishing a Christian Nation are open minded? I've listened to you and I will fight every line of your idiocy tooth and nail.

Why should you stay democrat? Are you supportive of gay rights? Probably not. Are you a democrat for economic reasons? I just can't fathom how someone who wants to return women to second class citizens is a democrat.

See and all this time I thought it was black box voting that caused our loss.

[Dark]

177. No, your argument is not logical.

If you believe that separate DNA is what distinguishes human beings, then what do you have to say about Identical tiwns? Are they just one person?

What about conjoined twins? Are they simply one person?

I am not intending to offend you, but you have to answer these very important questions to validate your point.

[Lindacooks]

179. No, sorry, it's people like you who are 'incapable of understanding

how someone might have a different way of approaching an issue'.

You are the ones who want to force your beliefs on everyone else.

You are the ones who are judging people just trying to do the best they can.

You are the ones who want to make women live according to your beliefs and rules.

You are the ones who insist on prying into the most personal decisions a woman can make.

You are the ones who want to interfere between a woman and her doctor.

Pro-privacy Democrats believe that women are smart enough to make the best decision FOR THEMSELVES about their lives and their bodies.

Anti-choice Republicans (and Democrats) want to force their 'morals' down everybody's throat because they have misogynistic viewpoints and think that women can't be trusted with their own bodies.

You can have your own opinion on personal issues that should be private, fine. Just use it to guide your own life. Period.

[Name removed]

208. Deleted message

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

[youthere]

249. Frankly..

I'm sick to death of this party pandering to every group who says "Do you want our votes or not"
Pick a platform and vote it. If you are a "lifelong democrat" you accept the platform. If abortion is that large of an issue then change to a pro life party rather than stay dem and stamp your feet and hold your breath until you get your way.

[lukasahero]

13. "If a woman has willingly agreed to provide food and lodging for a child,"

But isn't her request for an abortion proving that she, in fact, has not willingly agreed to provide food and lodging for a child?

[gumby]

43. I read that as the 'sex' part.

See, if a woman has sex, she has already made the decision to provide food and lodging.

[lukasahero]

70. WHAT?! So any woman who has sex has consented to have a baby?

So you are in favor of only having sex for the purposes of procreation? Oh, please some body else in this thread help me out here!

[jab105]

115. ANy woman who has sex and does not use any type of contraception

is taking a risk of getting pregnant...

And, yes, I'm a woman...and I don't like abortion at all...

My mother will never vote for a democrat because of it, even though on almost every other issue she is quite liberal...

I grew up Republican solely because of that issue...and I'm consistent...against death penalty, I'm vegetarian, pro-environment, pro-gun control...on the liberal/conservative scale, I'm at about an 85% liberal...this is my one sticking point!

[lukasahero]

122. Any woman who has sex and DOES use contraception is still at risk

of getting pregnant.

So, you agree then that women who don't want children should never have sex?

[Lindacooks]

181. Yep, you're absolutely right.

And, to the other poster, what about men's responsibility for birth control? They just get a free ride, huh?

[jab105]

217. Not at all...there is contraception with 99.9% effective...

on top of that, you KNOW which days that you are most at risk, 10-12 days after menstration starts...

I think that women who have sex know the risks of getting pregnant, thats why education is important...I have sex, and I don't want to get pregnant, and I haven't...its really not THAT hard...

Same with gaining weight, you know the risk...you take the chance...

Please don't use the false arguments that Republicans always try to use...

[mairceridwen]

245. what is 99.9% effective?

Even condoms are only 97% effective

Lots of women can't take birth control pills, many are allergic to condoms...so they rely on less effective means...or perhaps these women shouldn't have sex?

Not every woman's cycle is that consistent...otherwise, how would women get pregnant during their period?

Birth control fails, condoms break...shit happens.


And people make mistakes...it's stupid not to use birth control when you don't want kids, but shit happens, and I don't think that it's right to punish someone who made a mistake by forcing them to bear a child.

You take a risk EVERY time you have sex, even with birth control.

Gaining weight is not analogous to getting pregnant. Unless my fat cells have their own DNA, in which case Iiposuction should be outlawed.



IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WOULD BE NO MATH INVOLVED

[liberalhistorian]

252. Oh, REALLY?

My fiance and I were strict with the use of contraceptives and I STILL got pregnant! And guess what-Mr. Responsiblity decided he just didn't feel like dealing with it and threw me out of the house so he could continue his nice, comfortable, trouble-free life. But I HAD to deal with it whether I wanted to or not, and believe you me, I DID NOT want to deal with it. It was already emotionally devastating enough to deal with what he did, let alone being pregnant and alone.

And do you know WHY I had to deal with it and my fiance didn't? Because I was the WOMAN, that's why! Men still can have their fun, then take off and not have to deal with it if they don't want to, which is, frankly, an awful lot of the time. Yet, it is always the WOMAN who's held accountable even though she did have a little help in the matter. I chose not to have an abortion, but I sure as goddamn hell didn't appreciate the interference of people like you who thought they knew better than I did what was best for me and what I should do WHEN THEY DIDN'T EVEN FUCKING KNOW ME OR MY LIFE AT ALL!

And until MEN are held EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE along with women for pregnancy and its related matters, I refuse to listen to anti-abortion men and women who seem to think that their fellow women should bear all the burden and accountability, and the poor, downtrodden, abused men should get a free pass. Nothing pisses me off more than people like you thinking they have the right to determine for ALL women what they should do and their most private decisions, and I will NOT have such people taking over my party when they've already taken over the rest of the country.

[denile01]

262. Read My Lips

There is no perfect contraception.

When your 19 year old daughter is on the pill and sleeping with the village idiot, "99.9%" doesn't help you sleep better at night.

[gollygee]

273. There is no birth control 99.9% effective

And most women want sex the most during what would be their most fertile time. But it makes sense to punish women for liking sex by not allowing them to have sex when they like it most.

[Lars39]

86. Are you deciphering the OP, or is that your opinion?

[gumby]

129. Deciphering skjpm (OP)

What does this mean?:

If a woman has willingly agreed to provide food and lodging for a child, and has provided it without coercion, then she can't simply say to another human being, her child, "I'm kicking you out," whether that child lives in her house or in her body.


And I replying to lukasahero's question.
But isn't her request for an abortion proving that she, in fact, has not willingly agreed to provide food and lodging for a child?

Many anti-abortion thinkers hold that the only reproductive "choice" women have is the decision to have sex or not. A pregnancy has crossed the "choice" time-frame.

[lukasahero]

133. Sorry for wigging out on you

I didn't even think that you might just be interpretting the original poster.

On the other hand, if you agree with that position, I reiterate "WHAT?!?" ;-)

[Modem Butterfly]

96. Oy. Usually, he's lucky if he gets breakfast the next day.

:crazy:

[Modem Butterfly]

14. Okay men, time to stop masturbating!

And no more oral, anal, or sex other than vaginal, either! Everytime you do that, you're killing countless millions of human beings with their own unique DNA.

And ladies- stop menstruating! Each and every egg you waste fruitlessly every month is a separate individual, with the right to life, to vote, and to keep and bear arms!

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good...

[TomClash]

46. It's time to change the Preamble of the Consittution

We the Sperm and Egg of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Uterus, establish Justice for just us, insure domestic instability, provide for the common dee-fense, promote more Welfare queens, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to our DNA and for all the DNA hereafter, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Sparkly]

52. Just think: That "twinkle in his eye" could be president someday... n/t

[Modem Butterfly]

61. Not if he closes his eye to sleep it won't!

Hey! Sleepyhead! Stop nodding off! Those twinkles have a right to SHINE!

[VOX]

77. "I'll give up my johnson when they pry it from my cold dead fingers."

:evilgrin:
Sorry, couldn't resist.

[CaptainCorc]

98. LOL n/t

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

276. Does every sperm have it's own DNA?

Honest question

[GarySeven]

278. Arrest Hefner, Guccione for conspiracy to commit murder!!

[Goldmund]

15. Your whole argument rests upon the assumption...

...that human DNA is the basis for human rights.

Therefore, by that definition, killing any human cell -- a skin cell, a sperm cell, whatever -- is tantamount to murder. Masturbation is murder.

The basis for human rights is human sentience. And a fetus does not possess one.

[ohkay]

16. But then..

"..black, white, gay, straight, deaf, male, female, or unborn, has equal rights under the law.."

Only one "type" there cannot survive on it's own.

[GiovanniC]

17. I 100% Support Your Civil Right to Be Wrong and Stupid

n/t

[DrWeird]

lol

you just made my day.

[LizW]

18. What about a father

who is the only suitable organ donor for his infant child? Your logic would lead to the conclusion that the father should be compelled by law to donate a kidney, part of a liver, or bone marrow to the child, even if the operation is life threatening. The very same conflict of rights exists, and under your conclusions, the fetus or child always wins in such a conflict. The parent's rights become secondary automatically.

[mairceridwen]

67. McFall v. Shimp!!!

[LizW]

91. Yes

"In preserving such a society as we have, it is bound to happen that great moral conflicts will arise and will appear harsh in a given instance. In this case, the chancellor is being asked to force one member of society to undergo a medical procedure which would provide that part of that individual's body would be removed from him and given to another so that the other could live. Morally, this decision rests with the Defendant, and, in the view of the Court, the refusal of the Defendant is morally indefensible. For our law to COMPEL the Defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change the very concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn. (emphasis mine)

For a society which respects the rights of one individual, to sink its teeth into the jugular vein or neck of one of its members and suck from it sustenance for another member, is revolting to our hard-wrought concepts of jurisprudence. Forceible extraction of living body tissue causes revulsion to the judicial mind. Such would raise the spectre of the swastika and the Inquisition, reminiscent of the horrors this portends." McFall v. Shimp, 10 Pa. D. & C. 3d 90 (1978).

[MsAnthropy]

19. "each person, black, white, gay, straight, deaf, male, female, or unborn"

All right, children, which word does not belong in this sequence? Totally bizarre thinking.

[AllegroRondo]

21. By that definition, identical twins are not separate people.

does one then own the other?

[skjpm]

30. If identical twins, whose DNA matches, are separate, then

mothers and children must be even more separate. Parents do not own their children.

[DrWeird]

37. Regardless on your position on women's rights...

it took about five minutes for thirty or so DUers to show how ridiculously ill concieved your "DNA" argument is.

Hopefully you can turn this into an educational experience.

[skjpm]

59. Oddly, I don't think the people on this list are smarter than I am

Sorry. I actually trust my own opinion and the careful consideration I have gone through in forming it. You might try remembering that equally smart people can arrive at different conclusions.

[Goldmund]

66. That has nothing to do with the discussion

Stay on topic and address specifics, not who's smarter or less smart.

[DrWeird]

116. Regardless of how intelligent you might be...

your argument in your OP was horribly ill conceived and it remains that way.

The easy and rapid way in which it was deflated undermines your argument that it was "formed through careful consideration."

[readmoreoften]

174. you trust your own opinion!

Is that a 'faith-based' trust? Of course you trust your own opinion. You're not thinking. All I know is one thing: my personal survival as a female citizen depends on defeating people like you. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.

[liberalhistorian]

"I actually trust my own opinion and the careful

consideration I have gone through in forming it."

Yes, exactly. That's what women who are faced with an unplanned pregnancy and who are attempting to make a decision are doing, "trusting their own opinion and the careful consideration they have gone through in forming it."

YOU might try remembering that "equally smart" women can arrive at different decisions, each one a decision for what is best for HER and not what YOU think is best for her when you don't even know her. Who in the hell are you to make that most intimate, personal, and agonizing of decisions for her?

[Walt Starr]

88. Especially since under his argument conjoined identical twins

are one person, having the rights of a single person, each conjoined twin being a half person under his definition.

[TomClash]

22. My DNA is not unique, so please kill me

eom

[Sparkly]

23. The key word in your post is "I"

as in "I define a person as..." That's fine. So you won't ever have an abortion, and that's fine too.

What you can't do is impose your definitions on other people.

[Stirk]

24. I see several good arguments against your definition in this thread.

But you aren't responding to them. Defend your position.

[giant_robot]

25. First, that's a terrible definition of a human being.

Second, since an undifferentiated ball of cells is not a person, yet has its own "unique DNA", it doesn't even support your argument.

[DELUSIONAL]

26. Amazing how many *(*&^% are claiming ownership of

a women's body.

I've had so many women tell me that when they were pregnant strangers would have the nerve place a hand on their swollen belly -- as if their uterus and exterior of their uterus were no long part of the woman's body.

O.K. Pro - Lifers -- get over it -- WE WOMEN OWN OUR OWN BODIES. IF WE CHOOSE NOT to let an alien invade our bodies -- this is our choice.

If you personally choose not to have an abortion or not to have children -- then it is your choice.

And so we have folks the cult of the "un-born" or the "pre-born" -- and the anti-choicers/pro-choice fanatics will soon be worshiping the image of the swollen belly -- just like the ancients did -- as we stop further back in time and over populate the world.

Because these same anti-choicers/pro-lifers could care less about the just born babies -- and the children. I don't see any of the Anti-choice -- anti women's rights fanatics making supportive statements about the children who are living in poverty.

[eleny]

76. You've got that right!

Isn't the shrub's budget putting poor children at risk by reducing food stamp benefits and low income heating assistance? Like Randi Rhodes always says - "They love the fetus but hate the child."

[Sparkly]

99. George Carlin says it this way

"If you're pre-born, you're golden. If you're pre-school, you're fucked."

[spanone]

32. Don't call yourself pro-life. You are against-choice.

'There are many who want to see the Democratic party extend it's fight for civil rights to the unborn' not me pal. You are what I as a democrat fight against. You want to control an 'entity' that rests within a human being agaist the wishes of the 'host'. You define and live by your own needs and fears and leave me alone. Mine is None of your business.

[skjpm]

35. So it's OK to kick a gay couple out of an apartment building?

We don't want you here, it's our property, you're gone?

[DrWeird]

40. It's OK to kick gay people out of your womb...

if you don't want them there.

[dolo amber]

202. *snort*

<high fives Dr. Weird>

:D

[Modem Butterfly]

41. Well, yes

Quite literally in nearly all states and localities.

And in any event, if you're a landlord, it's okay to kick out all your tenants as long as you're not doing it simply because they fall into legally protected categories. You can kick me out for playing loud music and for being a slob and because you don't want to be a landlord anymore.

[skjpm]

48. But I can sue you and appeal your decision

That's what I am asking for the unborn.

[Modem Butterfly]

57. How can a person who doesn't exist yet sue?

That's like all the little spermatazoa that exist in your testes holding a caucus on whether or not you wear a condom.

[MissB]

126. LOL

That was funny, Modem.

[bowens43]

36. Unborn = unperson.

As soon as you prove that a fetus is a sentient being we may have something to discuss.

Sorry to burst your little bubble but I don't know any Democrat or Liberal who isn't pro-life. We just also happen to be pro-choice.


If you are anti-choice your are clearly at odds with most in our party. Perhaps you would be much more comfortable on the other side of the aisle. They claim to support civil rights too , even as they work tirelessly to curtail them.

[skjpm]

42. So Hillary's attempt to open up a dialogue is lost on you?

She said she respected people like me. I wonder what she'd say about how I'm being treated here. She's probably hate the fact that a fellow Democrat had to put up with this in order to state an opinion on a subject which she has said needs discussion. She wants my opinion--why don't you?

[LizW]

56. I have no problem with your opinion

What I have a problem with is the government regulating my womb. You are not the government, therefore your opinion is absolutely valid and respected by me. I assume that you would never have an abortion. I respect your choice.

Hilary Clinton, on the other hand, is part of the government. She has no business opening a dialogue about what is going to happen in anyone's womb but her own.

[bowens43]

62. Frankly , I don't care what Hillary thinks.

As far as I'm concerned, her and those like her are the problem, not the solution. I heard your opinion. You're right, the topic needs to be discussed, and we as progressives need to make it perfectly clear the there will be no degradation of the rights of women to chose.

[saracat]

100. Thank you

[lukasahero]

120. Your original post doesn't ask for discussion.

It tells everyone else that this is how life is defined and we have to get used to it. Not much room for discussion there.

[liberalhistorian]

267. Why the hell is it always

the Dems who have to "open up a dialogue" and "be receptive to the other side", etc., etc., when the other side has done NO such thing and never will? Why are WE always the ones expected to be nice and start an "open dialogue", etc.? Why do you NEVER hear the repubs say the same thing in regards to us except to say something along the lines of "we'll open up a dialogue, as long as it's on our terms and only considers our views." I'm tired of that, and I'm tired of people in our party trying to turn it into nothing more than repuke-lite, which will get us absolutely NOWHERE!

Bush did NOT win by a "landslide" and does NOT have an overwhelming mandate, despite all the media and repuke spin to the contrary. A three-percentage margin of victory is NOT a mandate. More people voted for Kerry than voted for Reagan in 1984. Those people don't want a "repuke-lite" party, and neither do we. We might as well all become repubs in that case. You want anti-abortion (and let's be honest here, let's call it what it really is, anti-choice and anti-women's rights), go to the repubs where you'll be much more comfortable, especially if you're a man. We already have the American Taliban taking over the country and attempting to push women back into the 19th century, we don't need our own party doing the same damned thing, thank you very much.

And as far as Hillary is concerned, I don't give a shit what she thinks. She's not the boss of my life, she's not even my senator. She doesn't know me and never will, and I don't know her and never will. She has no business making decisions over my life, and I don't think she'd appreciate me making decisions over hers. "Hillary said so", indeed. Like that's supposed to be the end-all and be-all of everything. I don't fucking think so.

[iverglas]

38. ain't it amazing?

"I define a person as a human being with its own unique DNA."

Nobody cares!

You aren't the boss of what words mean, y'see.

I think I'll define a square as a geometric figure with three sides.

Okay with you, now?


"This seems a concrete, unarguable way to define a person: a human being with its own unique DNA."

Actually, "person" is a construct mainly used for discussing rights and obligations within a social context.

The subset of "person" comprised of "human being" is -- you got it! -- a human being. And a "human being" is, by universal consensus of human beings in human groups across history and geography, at its barest minimum, that which is born, human and alive.

But hmm. Were you meaning to tell us that identical twins are not human beings? They have the same DNA. Are they both not human beings? Just one? Which one?

And why is my cancer not entitled to rights? It's human, and it has its own unique DNA.


"There are cases in which the unborn's right to life comes into conflict with the woman's right to life. There are many legally difficult times when two humans' rights conflict. Each case must be decided on an individual basis. No law can successfully cover all possibilities."

Okey dokey! Here's where we get to the meat of the issue. And my question:

HOW'S IT GONNA WORK?

If you're proposing that my rights be violated, then I assume that you have a process figured out for determining when it is justifiable to do this.

Pregnancy and delivery involve inherent risks to the health and life of pregnant women; the risk to any individual pregnant woman cannot be predicted and there can be no assurance that the materialization of the risk can be averted or harm prevented if it materializes; some women will be permanently disabled, and some women will die, as a result of pregnancy or delivery.

You succeed in having "human rights" assigned to z/e/fs.
A pregnant woman wishes to terminate her pregnancy.
A choice must be made: may she terminate her pregnancy?

Who makes the choice?
What criteria are applied?
How do those criteria meet the due process and equal protection requirements that civilized societies require to be met before an individual may be denied the exercise of human rights? --

U.S. Constitution:
Amendment XIV
Section 1. ... No state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Canadian Constitution:
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination ... .

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. ...

HOW can any process that meets the requirements of due process and equal protection result in the death of a human being who has committed no offence??? How can a human being be deprived of life when s/he(/it) has not been the subject of any finding of wrongdoing such as would justify depriving him/her(/it) of life???

Someone to whom I recently put these questions replied:

The truth is, I don't have any idea of how its gonna work. Not in detail I don't.

To which I said:

No shit. No details required, though. Just an answer. Any answer.

If I were to propose a public policy/action that would apparently result in you being compelled to assume a risk to your life that you did not wish to assume, I would very much expect you to ask me how it was gonna work in such a way that your rights would not be violated, and you would not die, and I would certainly expect that you would not take "I don't have any idea" as an answer.

We're gonna send a rocket to Mars. We have volunteered you to be on it. How's it gonna get back to Earth with you still alive? Well hell, we don't have any idea. Now suit up and buckle in. And by the way, if you get away before the rocket goes up, you'll go to prison.

Now, I'm not the kind of person who's being drafted for that trip to Mars. Only white, male, adult human beings with IQs below 100 are up for that job. So obviously, I won't give a shit when they come for them.

You remember. First they came for ...

First they come for the pregnant woman, and tell her that she is now required to assume a risk to her health and life that she does not wish to assume, in order that little Fetie may exercise its "human rights": that she must die, if that's what it takes, so that Fetie lives.

Next they'll be coming for one of those other people who aren't me, and telling him that he must "donate" his kidney to the nice lady in Albuquerque who will die tomorrow if she doesn't receive it, in order that she may exercise her human rights: that he must die, if that's what it takes, so that the nice lady lives.

Hell, next they'll be coming for his heart.

Of course, we might find that they need some way of deciding who is more entitled to that guy's heart: him, or the nice lady in Albuquerque. Who is more entitled to live?

WHO IS MORE ENTITLED TO LIVE/"LIVE": the pregnant woman or little Fetie?


"There are many who want to see the Democratic party extend it's fight for civil rights to the unborn, and I am one of them. Prove to me that the woman's and the unborn's DNA are the same, then I might change my mind."

Well, prove to me that you give a shit about other people -- and specifically about women -- and about other people's rights, and I might just change my mind about you. I don't think I probably need to tell you what my opinion is at the moment.

Until then--We're here. We're pro-life. Get used to it.

I'm not a USAmerican, let alone Democrat, so I guess I can just ignore you. But I think you'd probably best get used to hearing a few other people's opinions yourself.

[MsAnthropy]

55. Great post! Thanks.

[mairceridwen]

72. you gots good braines

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

203. Thank goodness you never seem to tire easily, Iverglas

:thumbsup:

[BrklynLiberal]

207. Great post! I am saving that one!!

[iverglas]

224. ta, all ;)

Of course, while I was composing that one -- and even though I lifted a bunch of it from a discussion this very day at a completely different site -- 36 people managed to post ahead of me before I was done ... and a number of them were even cuter about the identical twins and the tumours. ;)

Never let the bad guys avoid the real questions.

I mean, they'll never answer them (oh look, no answers yet again). But they'll know that we know that they know.

[cags]

44. I'm on your side but I disagree with the whole DNA thing

What if a woman carried her own clone? A life is a life no matter what thier DNA contains. I don't think DNA is a definition of life. Dead people have DNA too.

But I have noticed more pro-life dems coming out of the closet here lately. I know there are more they are just afraid to speak in this environment. Thick skin with lots of flame cream is good. But generally I've had nothing but intelligent conversation and debate, I'm not complaining.

I feel like live and let live as long as you are not hurting anyone else.

[hector459]

214. I'm pro-life AND pro-choice. So what does that make me?

I don't believe in the death penalty.
I believe a mother has a right to decide whether or not she will have an abortion. It's between the mother and her God and her conscience.
I don't believe in war unless for self-defense to protect my family from imminent REAL danger.

[On the Road]

45. There's Lots of Unique DNA That's Not an Individual Person

Sperm and egg cells, for example. Or even a fertilized egg -- fertility clinics have thousands stored.

Unlike a lot of other DUers, I believe that you are asking the right question. I just disagree with the basis for your answer.

Some people believe a fertilized egg is a human being. I just don't see the basis for it. There's certainly nothing in the Bible. Even in the 19th century, I have heard that abortion was considered OK as long as it came before the baby "quickened in the womb."

One way is to define the beginning of life is the point where an embryo or fetus has developed into a sentient being. Since you can't ask them, you have to look at the biology to see how the brain develops. For me, the second trimester is the gray area. I can't imagine thinking a fetus is sentient before three months. And I can't imagine NOT thinking that after six months. To me, that's where the discussion should be.

[Goldmund]

51. Bingo

One way is to define the beginning of life is the point where an embryo or fetus has developed into a sentient being. Since you can't ask them, you have to look at the biology to see how the brain develops. For me, the second trimester is the gray area. I can't imagine thinking a fetus is sentient before three months. And I can't imagine NOT thinking that after six months. To me, that's where the discussion should be.

Exactly!

[Orangepeel]

198. that's also exactly what Roe v Wade says...

states can't restrict it in the first trimester and can restrict it in the last trimester unless the restrictions don't allow for exceptions based on concern for a woman's health, which violates her rights.

[WLKjr]

50. This is such a flame bait post.........

[skjpm]

63. So, any attempt to open up discussion is flame bait?

Again, no wonder the Democrats lose. This is probably the most significant issue, like it or not, we face, and we should at least be able to discuss it without flaming each other. Hillary said so.

[yellowcanine]

79. See my post #75. It is the TONE that makes it flamebait, not the topic.

[lastliberalintexas]

104. Are you fucking kidding me?

1500+ soldiers dead
untold number of soldiers injured/maimed
untold number of Iraqis and Afghans dead
record budget deficits
mounting national debt
potential collapse of the US dollar
threatened invasion/strikes against Iran and/or Syria
EU and Russian pacts with Iran
OPEC threats of lower output and switch to Euro
possible draft


And yet you think *abortion* is the most significant issue we face? :eyes:

[Goldmund]

108. Should we only discuss "the most significant issues we face"?

[lastliberalintexas]

117. Did I say abortion should not be discussed?

I was simply responding to the poster who said it was probably the most significant issue we face. With everything else going on in the world right now, it would be idiotic to say that this issue (ie, abortion) is the most significant we face. Sorry, but if someone is that focused on abortion and controlling others in these times, s/he needs to get a life.

[Goldmund]

131. Sorry -- my bad. Did not see when he/she said that...

...this is "probably the most important issue we face". That is verily ridiculous, I agree.

[WildClarySage]

124. Hillary said so!!!

[GiovanniC]

137. Interesting Words, No?

Hillary said so.

Things that make you go... Hmmm....

[readmoreoften]

175. you haven't attempted to open up discussion

you're just trying to convince people of your weak argument with weak logic. And cut out this 'that's why the democrats lose' shit. Face facts, most people in this country are PRO-CHOICE.

And as a lesbian, how dare you bring discrimation against me into your argument with ill-conceived analogies!

I think we should develop the technology so that men can become human test-tubes. Then we can force all pro-life men to incubate babies for nine months and then C-section them out.

[RetroLounge]

186. You keep referring to Democrats as an other

so what are you?

"Again, no wonder the Democrats lose"

Shouldn't that be "us" Democrats?

By the way, your logic in the OP sucks ass, as 30 or 40 peopoe have easily pointed out. Nice try.

RL

[Lars39]

69. Sure is,

but at least it identifies who wants to have Big Brother right there in the exam room with every single pregnancy.

[liberalhistorian]

268. We're fast on the road to having

exactly that, I'm afraid. One way Shrub will likely solve the unemployment problem and the problem of people being displaced by outsourcing is to implement a "pregnancy police corps."

I can see it now. Women will be forced to undergo monthly tests to determine if they're pregnant. If they are, then they'll be assigned their own "pregnancy bodyguard" to be with them 24/7 throughout the pregnancy to make sure they not only go through with it, but to check everything they eat, drink, and do. If they have a miscarriage and the "pregnancy bodyguard" determines that they may have possibly contributed to it through something they ate, drank, or did, or even didn't do, then they can be criminally charged.

Don't laugh, people. With who's currently in control, this really isn't all that far-fetched. The woman who was arrested and charged with murder for refusing to undergo a c-section even though her doctors demanded it is proof of that.

[mairceridwen]

54. simple

I don't care if you think of it as a cell-cluster or a baby, reproductive rights are
about autonomy and the protection of bodily integrity and the so-called rights of a fetus do not trump those of the mother. In McFall v. Shimp, Shimp's bodily
integrity was legally protected to the extent that he was permitted to refuse a procedure
(a bone marrow extraction and donation) that could have prevented his cousin's death from aplastic anemia. (McFall died two weeks after the ruling). Now, we can argue that for Shimp to refuse to provide his cousin with lifesaving tissue is morally questionable, if not repugnant, to some but his body is his own and that is not subject to legislation. I don't
see the issue of abortion as that much different.

Regarding child-support. I don't think it's right to force child support payments, but then again, once a child is born there is an individual there who had no choice in the matter and who cannot take care of himself. I don't think that you can legislate responsibility. The fact is women and men have different roles with respect to the bearing of children, but once a child is born both people are parents.


No government, no man, has any say in what I do with my body. It's about protecting individual autonomy and bodily integrity. Any society that doesn't recognize that
is a society that FORCES women to bear children and that is wrong. Even if fetus rights were justifiable they cannot trump the rights of the mother.

As far as first, second, and third trimester is concerned. My example would justify even a third trimester abortion and that isn't even something I can get my head around, much less defend such a thing. However, practically speaking, if EVERY woman had access to
a safe, legal, inexpensive abortion in her first trimester we probably wouldn't even have to think about third trimester abortions except in sudden, rare instances of a woman's life being at stake.


(legal example is from Susan Bordo's book, Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body)

[mopinko]

127. thank you

>In McFall v. Shimp<
i wanted a case to sight. i knew they were out there. this is my argument as well. there was a local case here where they couldn't compel a half-sibling to even be tested over the objections of the custodial parent.
the government cannot compel you to give a drop of blood to save a life. how can they blithely compel women to risk their lives, and change their bodies forever? give me a break.

[liberalhistorian]

258. Was that case the one where a

12-year-old boy was dying of leukemia and his father wanted the 3-year-old twins he'd fathered with his mistress to be tested for possible bone marrow donation, and the twins' mother objected and refused to allow it? I felt bad for the boy and thought the mother should have allowed her twins to at least be tested; it was, however, HER decision and she had the right to make whatever choice she felt was best for her children.

She'd been told there were possible complications, especially if so young a child had to undergo a bone marrow extraction, and she was doing what she thought was best. No one else seemed to care that there may be danger to the children, they all harassed the mother relentlessly. All they cared about was the boy and not the young twins. The father sure as hell didn't care about the twins, he'd abandoned his mistress when she got pregnant and paid no attention to the children at all until his son got sick and needed a transplant. I was so glad the courts came down on the side of the mother.

My son's father had a son with another woman several years ago. My son loves his half-brother, and I'm so happy he has a sibling. But if the boy were to get sick, I'd hate to have anyone else interfering in my decision to allow my son to be tested and undergo a transplant or marrow extraction, etc.

[iverglas]

183. and lest anyone think we're making it up ...

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_story_skin/420753%3fformat=html
(NZ news source, US story)

A woman charged with homicide for refusing to have a Caesarean section that doctors said would have saved her stillborn twin pleaded guilty on Wednesday to two child endangerment charges after prosecutors dropped the murder charge.

Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, had been charged with criminal homicide because police said she repeatedly refused to have surgery that would save her twins because she feared being scarred by the operation.

... The child endangerment charges are for using cocaine while she was pregnant.

There are a few more risks involved in Caesarian sections than unsightly scars.

And yet when it was a man in the situation, in the case you refer to (many thanks for that; the only one I was aware of was a request to compel a father to donate to his minor child, and I've never located the outcome of that one):

http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/lawmcfall.html

The Plaintiff, Ribert McFall, suffers from a rare form of bone marrow disease <aplastic anemia> and the prognosis for his survival is very dim, unless he receives a bone marrow transplant from a compatible donor. Finding a compatible donor, however, is a very difficult task, and limited to a selection among close relatives. After a search and certain tests, it has been determined that only the Defendant is suitable as a donor. The Defendant refuses to submit to the necessary transplant, and before the Court is a request for a preliminary injunction which seeks to compel the defendant to submit to further tests, and eventually the bone marrow transplant.

... Our society ... has as its first principle, the respect for the individual, and that society and government exist to protect the individual from being invaded and hurt by another.

... In preserving such a society as we have, it is bound to happen that great moral conflicts will arise and will appear harsh in a given instance. In this case, the chancellor is being asked to force one member of society to undergo a medical procedure which would provide that part of that individual's body would be removed from him and given to another so that the other could live. Morally, this decision rests with the Defendant, and, in the view of the Court, the refusal of the Defendant is morally indefensible. For our law to COMPEL the Defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change the very concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn.

For a society which respects the rights of one individual, to sink its teeth into the jugular vein or neck of one of its members and suck from it sustenance for another member, is revolting to our hard-wrought concepts of jurisprudence. Forceible extraction of living body tissue causes revulsion to the judicial mind. Such would raise the spectre of the swastika and the Inquisition, reminiscent of the horrors this portends.

It would be hard to say it better than that.

And I'm afraid that forcible submission to the use of one's entire body for a period of several months in the service of someone's concern about a fetus that is not and may never be a human being in any event, with all the attendant and various risks to one's health and life, causes even more revulsion to my mind.

[Norquist Nemesis]

60. Welcome to the tent!

You are perfectly entitled to your view. And I fully support your right to have it as well as practice it with your choice.

I cannot, however, support your imposing NO choice on others.

Personally, I can honestly say I don't know whether I would choose to have an abortion or not. I AM certain that if I had found myself pregnant after being raped by and intruder at the age of 19 (whom the police never caught, btw), that yes...I definitely would have aborted. I would not bring a child into this world that might at some time in the future have to live with the shame of being conceived through rape.

The same is the case if my daughter were raped...especially in the case of incest and/or her being of such a young age that it would jeopordize her very existence.

Separate DNA does not make a viable human being. Like you said, not all circumstances can be covered. And because of that, the CHOICE should be available (period).

So, let's work together to reduce abortions. Shall we? :)

[KaliTracy]

64. while I respect your viewpoint, I disagree with your view making a decisio

decision for me, or for any other woman, for that matter. Your definition then would mean that most, if not all forms of contraception would be wrong -- which I disagree with.

Reproductive rights should be between a woman and her physician and no one else. Unless we are to become like China, where the Government makes laws over a woman's body, where Government states that one gender is preferred over another, the United States Government has no right in telling a woman what she can or must do in terms of reproductive choice.

Reproductive freedom means that my mother would NOT have had to have two psychiatrist signatures saying she would be mentally incapacitated if she had another stillborn simply because she wanted to get a tubal ligation in 1967. But this is what happened to her (and she was an OB nurse!). The pill made her sick and with RH negative blood, after her first stillborn (after I was born) she had a 1 in 4 chance of having another live birth, and this was before Rogam and before Roe v. Wade. She refused to be treated like she was mentally ill.

This happened, and it was standard practice.

While we're on it, reproductive freedom means that Pharmacists have no right to deny a woman a prescription from her doctor. If they do not believe in any prescription, for whatever reason, they should pass it to another pharmacist, not usurp a doctor's written medical order. There are groups of pharmacists out there now who are denying women (married or not) access to birth control pills. Besides the privacy issue being violated, this also interferes with a Doctor’s medical order (birth control pills are used for things other than preventing pregnancy, such as for ovarian cysts, and hormonal regulation).

There is a group of pharmacists who have actively come out "against" the pill, and are denying women prescriptions that their doctors have given http://www.prevention.com/article/0,5778,s1-1-93-35-4130-1,00.html
I'm not talking about the "morning after pill" -- I'm talking the normal run-of-the-mill birth control pills.


I'm sorry. I feel that a decision like this is not up to anyone to make but a woman and her physician.


A few more things to consider...

in wisconsin a bill has been proposed that would have a woman report a miscarriage to the police within 12 hours... http://www.wisdems.org/WLN/Mar_Update.htm

and yes morning after pills, too have been targeted:
article on emergency contraception often denied (though -- I have to wonder why the authorities were not brought into the picture since in the first example the woman was raped) http://www.wworld.org/crisis/crisis.asp?ID=455

[skjpm]

73. Please read God's Politics by Jim Wallis

That may allay your fears on how this subject might be handled from a liberal pro-life context.

I have to go to work now. I'll check in on this thread later.

[yellowcanine]

89. Jim Wallis would be appalled by the way you initiated this discussion.

You shoved your beliefs in our faces and told us to "get used to it." I have met Jim Wallis and heard him speak. That is the exact opposite of the way he discusses sensitive issues with those who may disagree with him.

[Lars39]

90. You start a thread like this and skip out 40 min later?

[semillama]

105. Funny how he never really responded to the whole DNA

rebuttal, innit?

Basically, this poster wanted to find something to justify why women shouldn't control their bodies, and latched onto something that he thought was unassailable.

Now, if I have a tapeworm in my gut, would I then have to leave it be since it is a being with separate DNA than myself?

Does that make it a person?

For that matter, what makes a person? is it just being a Homo sapiens? If so, were Homo heidelbergensis not "people"? What if we find out that say, oh dolphins to use a tired old cliche, dolphins are found to be sentient? Are they "people"? Does the concept of basic human rights extend to non-human sentients? Shouldn't I be posting this in the Science Fiction Forum?

[mairceridwen]

110. you mock my pain!!!!!!!

getting that tapeworm out was the hardest thing i've ever done

i still regret what i did to that tapeworm.

poor tapeworm.

[BrklynLiberal]

210. Let's see those pharmacists deny men their viagra or condoms!

[KaliTracy]

244. Exactly! And lets get Spouse/Girlfriend consent for vasectomies

since they aren't required now (or in the 60s) -- but in many hospitals a spouse has to sign for a woman to get a tubal (even if she is the process of getting a divorce).

[Kitsune]

68. So mitochondria are independent organisms?

Riiight.

[yellowcanine]

93. Excellent refutation of the premise. Actually, your question is

interesting for another reason. Some evolutionary biologists think that mitochondria were independent organisms at one time and were coopted by primitive cells - or were perhaps parasites of primitive cells.

[Johonny]

106. Ghee

Since you inheret mitochondria DNA soly from the mother. So there goes the fetis DNA is unique because it's different from the mother. It seems so easy and yet what is a human always seems just out of reach of an easy answer.

[yellowcanine]

75. "Get used to it." may not be the best way to inspire useful dialogue if

that is really what you want.......I have to say it makes me think otherwise.

[Dookus]

78. really?

THAT'S the reason you're anti-abortion? DNA?

I don't believe you. I think that's just argument number 37 in "Pro-Life for Dummies" and you're regurgitating it here.

I believe your objection to abortion has little to do with DNA.

[Walt Starr]

80. Under your definition, the fetus has no right to be in the woman's womb

and can be evicted at will by the woman.

You actually SUPPORT abortion with your definition.

[Phentex]

121. Exactly. And how can the fetus live outside the womb?

Until we start growing babies in aquariums, the woman has the right to carry (evict) the baby or not.

[HamdenRice]

81. skjpm, Here is the error in your argument ...

which a number of posters have suggested, but not stated clearly. You are making a basic mistake of logic. Assuming you are correct with the proposition: a "person {is} a human being with its own unique DNA". That does not mean that every thing that has its own unique DNA is a person. This is a fundamental logical principal. For example, assume: Every dog is a canine. Therefore, every canine is a dog. The first is true, the second is not true. There are foxes, coyotes, wolves, etc. that are canines, but are not dogs.

People have responded to you on the basis of this logical fallacy. The problem is that every embryo may have its unique DNA combination, but that does not make it a person.

In fact, almost all forms of birth control involve abortion. That's the dirty little secret of the debate. They do not work solely by prevent conception; they prevent implantation of the embryo in the uterus. One form of the pill does prevent development of eggs, but if eggs develop, they are prevented from being implanted. The same with IUDs.

So I think we have to agree that a several cell embryo is not a person. I think the really fruitful discussion for people who are uncomfortable with abortion, whether Democrat or republican, is to think about when the fetus achieves personhood. The orthodox pro-choice position is after birth. Maybe what concerns you is that personhood is achieved sometime before birth. But I don't think you can logically say personhood is achieved at conception -- as soon as the embryo has a unique genetic makeup.

[yellowcanine]

101. And see Kitsune's point in post 68. Mitochondria have their own human

DNA so they are people too. cool!

[smoogatz]

82. Let's be honest.

If abortion is outlawed, you'll turn every ob/gyn in the country into an extension of the Justice Department. The government will be obliged to monitor every single reported pregnancy to insure that it's carried to term. You'll be mandating government intrusion not only into a woman's relationship with her doctor, but into her womb. Does anyone think this is a good idea? If you want to dramatically reduce the number of surgical abortions in these country (and who doesn't?), do what the Europeans have done: make the morning-after pill easily available; make sure all women have access to RU486 as an alternative to surgical abortion; teach kids the facts about birth control and STDs--i.e., condoms WORK.

[Hugin]

83. Interesting argument...

In your introduction you stated what you personally define as a
"human being".

Then you state how your definition should cover all human beings.

Then you state how "Each case must be decided on an individual basis. No law can successfully cover all possibilities."
Isn't that the current policy in this country? If this is how you
feel, why isn't the informed decision of the mother enough? Why
involve the government?

[Sweet Freedom]

84. arguments against abortion boil down to six specific questions.

From http://elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html#human

Is it alive?
Is it human?
Is it a person?
Is it physically independent?
Does it have human rights?
Is abortion murder?

Snip from "Is it a person?"

No. It's merely a potential person.

Webster's Dictionary lists a person as "being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity." Anti-abortionists claim that each new fertilized zygote is already a new person because its DNA is uniquely different than anyone else's. In other words, if you're human, you must be a person.

Of course we've already seen that a simple hair follicle is just as human as a single-cell zygote, and, that unique DNA doesn't make the difference since two twins are not one person. It's quite obvious, then, that something else must occur to make one human being different from another. There must be something else that happens to change a DNA-patterned body into a distinct person. (Or in the case of twins, two identically DNA-patterned bodies into two distinct persons.)

[Bridget Burke]

87. Why all the flame-bait abortion threads right now?

Distraction, Dissension....

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[ThorsHammer]

111. I vote not to ban him

I'd like to hear what he has to say. I also don't think he made any personal attacks, name-calling, etc. IMO it would be better to hear his responses to the many questions/issues that others have raised.

[Bridget Burke]

125. I don't vote to ban HIM either.....

I was just wondering why all these abortion threads have popped up in the last couple of days.

Someone wants us to waste our energy arguing the unarguable.

[Lars39]

128. I was only slightly serious.

Sometimes posting patterns develop that can prove quite interesting. :)

[ThorsHammer]

192. Sorry about that then

As long as he's not flaming or making personal attacks, I'm willing to hear him out. I've given up arguing on the abortion issue here for the most part.

[displacedtexan]

95. Whatever happened to "the quick and the dead?"

Trying to use legal scientific definitions to support a moral argument is, in my opinion, downright silly.

Read Antigone to see what happens when a family mixes legal and moral arguments.

Not a pretty sight.

You either believe, as the Bible says, that life is from the quickening until death (based on God's judgment thereof), or you accept the laws of Caesar (The US Supreme Court) and focus on your own life and your own family... and leave everyone else the hell alone.

In my opinion, sperm is not sacred.

And you have no idea how many of the so-called righteous get private abortions each year. Only the publicly funded ones get counted, you know; and lawmakers made abortion legal in order to protect women from butchers.

You won't stop abortion. Period.

The Precautionary Arts (for rich women) are as old as the hills.

[yellowcanine]

113. The Bible does not treat the fetus as a person. Read here.

The Bible and the Fetus

Exodus 21:22ff is the biblical foundation for the position that a fetus is not considered a full human being and has no juridical personality of its own.

When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life…

In this account, a distinction is made between the penalty that is to be exacted for the loss of the fetus and any injury to the woman. For the fetus, a fine is paid as determined by the husband and the judges (verse 22). However, if the woman is injured or dies, lex talionus is applied: “Thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (vv. 23-25).

The story has only limited application to the current abortion debate since it deals with accidental, not willful, pregnancy termination. Even so, the distinction between the protection accorded the woman and that accorded the fetus under covenant law is important. The woman has full standing as a person under the covenant; the fetus has only a relative standing, certainly inferior to that of the woman. This passage gives no support to the parity argument that gives equal religious and moral worth to woman and
fetus.

[saracat]

97. I define a human being as sentient. The unborn are not sentient. I

I am outraged that anyone would grant a clump of cells more rights than a woman who has already been born and has an established identity.No law can cover all possibilities so a womans right to self detrmination can be thrown away ? My basic civil rights can be sarificed for an unborn? All I can say is how dare you even think to so cavilarly disgard what women have diedto ensure. Maybe you want to take our right to vote next?
When you are willing to personally provide support for both these women and their children, all of them, you can offer an opinion.You obviously don't have an interest in whose lives you ruin.

[Johonny]

102. unique?

The question becomes how unique is unique. Since people all share 99.9(% or so of their DNA does that mean we are all the same person? Worse what is the cut off to human DNA? Can we kill chimps with 98.5 %. What's the cut off for uniqueness and who gets to decide? DNA seems like a good choice and yet like every other definition of "being human" it eventually falls to individual preference and faith. As for me, I'd want those cancerous tumors removed even if they got unique "human" DNA.

[Hugin]

114. Don't get me started on chimp killing!

"Can we kill chimps with 98.5 %"

NO!

I'm a pro-chimper.

;)

[Pithlet]

109. If you want to join the Democratic party, feel free.

But, don't expect us to change our believes to accommodate you. You're here, so we should get used to it? Fine. Then, get used to the fact that you've chosen to align yourself with a party where most don't share your opinion on the matter of choice. Don't act like we're trying to eject you because we disagree with you.

If the fact that Democrats and other progressives are overwhelmingly pro choice bothers you that much, then maybe you should look at other options.

[Liberal Veteran]

112. So what about rape or sexual abuse?

Is abortion okay then since there was no consent?

[seabeyond]

144. hypocrit to anyone saying ok to rape and incest abortions

and murder with any other abortion. no other word but HYPOCRIT

[Liberal Veteran]

153. Agreed.

There is no other word for it.

Indeed, a person who makes excuses for why a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest can be terminated, but not other reasons is fooling themselves if they truly believe they aren't trying to punish behavior rather than save babies.

[Orangepeel]

200. I can think of a few other words...

but hypocrit is certainly one of them!

:-)

[TexasSissy]

118. Your definition of human being - Just because that's how YOU define it,

doesn't mean that that's the correct definition.

My definition of human being: A mammal of the homo sapien species that has its own DNA and is able to live separate and apart in its own body from other human beings.

Merriam-Webster's Definition: a bipedal primate mammal.

First...it is usu. embryos, not fetuses, that are aborted.

Second...it is not the legal argument for pro-choice that the embryo or fetus is part of the mother to the extent that it is not an individual in and of itself. The argument is that the mother herself has individual rights that supercede those of the embryo/fetus. This is a commonly accepted argument, as is evident when there is, say, a car accident, and the mother is on the verge of dying, unless the three month old fetus is removed. There are few who would not say that the mother's life takes precedence; it has commonly been the legal case for many years that that is so.

Abortion is a sad situation for all concerned. Few women take the decision lightly, and some women are actually coerced into abortion. There is some evidence to indicate that having an abortion may not be emotionally healthy for women in the long run. But there is also evidence to indicate that being forced to carry an unwanted baby to term may not be emotionally healthy for women, either. And for centuries, some societies have forced women to do just that, and then scorned her for the rest of her life for doing that.

We live in a society that is unwilling to care for unwanted children. That is Bush's policy (his new budget has steep cuts in food stamp program, job training, education, housing assistance, etc.).

In a perfect world women would not get pregnant unless they were married to a man who does not cheat and would stay with her forever, both of them taking care of the child. They would have plenty of $$$ in the bank to pay for living expenses, health care, college, etc. There would be no pollution to fill the infant's lungs with. No crime in the streets. But we do not live in a perfect world.

Abortion should be rare, in my opinion....a last resort. But in the end, the woman owns her body, not the state.

[Liberal Veteran]

119. HIV has it's own DNA, so don't kill it!

Same with all STDs, normal flora, and pathological bacteria and organisms in the body.

[Pithlet]

123. You mean

I just committed murder by cleaning out my refrigerator? There was all kinds of DNA in there. That means I'm a mass murderer! :cry:

[Hugin]

139. Turn in your sponge...

and report to the rack. -- Signed A. Gonzales.

[JDPriestly]

130. The issue is not civil rights of the unborn.

OK. You asked for it. Here is my legal opinion. Believe it or not, this is the short version.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) held that a Texas statute that made "it a CRIME to 'procure an abortion' . . . or to attempt one" (my emphasis) except when medically advised or necessary to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional. The issue is not DNA. It is criminal penalties and whether a woman has a right to privacy that allows her to make her own reproductive and other medical decisions without government interference.

I suggest you read Roe v. Wade.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113

The right recognized in Roe v. Wade was clarified in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 112 S. Ct. 2791 (1992), in which Justice Sandra O'Connor wrote:

Abortion is a unique act. It is an act fraught with consequences for others: for the woman who must live with the implications of her decision; for the persons who perform and assist in the proceeding; for the spouse, family, and society which must confront the knowledge that these procedures exist, procedures some deem nothing short of an act of violence against innocent human life; and depending on one's beliefs, for the life or potential life that is aborted. Though abortion is conduct, it does not follow that the State is entitled to proscribe it in all instances. That is because the liberty of the woman is at stake in a sense unique in the human condition and so unique to the law. The mother who carries a child to full term is subject to anxieties, to physical constraints, to pain that only she must bear. That these sacrifices have from the beginning of the human race been endured by woman with a pride that ennobles her in the eyes of others and gives to the infant a bond of love cannot alone be grounds for the State to insist she make the sacrifice. Her suffering is too intimate and personal for the State to insist, without more, upon its own vision of the woman's role however dominant that vision has been in the course of our history and our culture. The destiny of the woman must be shaped to a large extent on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society.

. . .

As a rule (whether or not mistaken)of personal autonomy and bodily integrity, with doctrinal affinity to cases recognizing limits on governmental power to mandate medical treatment or to bar its rejection . . ., our cases since Roe accord with Roe's view that a State's interest in the protection of life falls short of justifying any plenary override of individual liberty claims.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=405&invol=438

Casey is often ignored by the anti-abortion movement, which thrives on spreading the lie that the right to abortion is absolute. It isn't, as Casey explains. Casey draws a line at viability. Before viability, a woman has the right to choose without state interference. But, after viability, the State may intervene on behalf of the developing child provided that its intervention does not impose an undue burden on the woman's rights under the Constitution. Justice O'Connor defined "undue" or "unconstitutional burden" as "a state regulation has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus."

O'Connor further stated: Unless it has the effect of placing "a substantial obstacle to the woman's exercise of the right to choose . . . a state measure designed to persuade her to choose childbirth over abortion will be upheld if reasonably related to that goal."

Abortion rights are just one aspect of the right to privacy that we all enjoy. That right is not spelled out, but is implied in the Constitution. One reason Democrats need to hold firm on abortion is that, if we allow abortion opponents to overturn Roe v. Wade and our abortion rights, they will next attack Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) which recognized the right of unmarried people to obtain contraceptive devices. The link to that case is
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=405&invol=438

And after Eisenstadt, who knows, forced sterilization anyone? I believe it actually happened at one point in history. How about forced impregnation somewhere down the line. Let's say if you are lucky enough to have a really good gene pool, could the government use you as like a farmer uses a good sow? Could we be forced to take experimental medicines? Without the right to privacy over our bodies, who knows?

To sum up:

The right to abortion is inseparable from the right to privacy and the right to make other medical decisions (such as sterilization) for yourself.

The right to abortion is not absolute once the baby is viable. I believe this responds to your concern about the baby having its own DNA. The DNA does not make the baby a human being. Being able to survive on its own makes the baby a human being. Until it can, it is not a human being.

I can understand and sympathize with your abhorrence of abortion. I thank God that I have never been in a position in which I had to make that choice. But, I personally came close to it (for health reasons), and, therefore, I also understand that it is a very private decision. That is why it is protected by the sacred, God-given right to privacy.

[eleny]

132. Can a fetus have its own credit card?

[Hugin]

148. Proof of life!

IT'S ALIVE! IT HAS A CREDIT CARD! IT'S AAAAALLIIVVVEE!

-- Signed Dr. Frank N. Stein M.D.

[PaganPreacher]

184. My Labrador retreiver got one, so why not?

Susan D. xxxxx
Valid through 08/06



The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[enki23]

135. tapeworms have their own DNA

but they aren't self-aware. neither is a fetus. nor, though this should go without saying, is an embryo.

but that's been said a few times here. tumors, viruses, etc. etc.

oh, and there are many, many people walking around out there who have two very distinct sets of DNA in their own bodies. do they then qualify as two people, these chimeras? in fact, everyone has different DNA in different parts of their body, as our cells are constantly mutating to some degree. how much different DNA is required to qualify a cell, or a tissue, as part of another person?

every time someone tries to invent a hard-line distinction between one set of life and another, the reality of life gets in the way. you can't easily draw circles around separate lives, because there is no life on the planet that isn't, really, just an offshoot of another life, or lives.

[Stop_the_War]

138. FETUSES ARE NOT PEOPLE!

[Cleita]

140. Parasites like fleas and ticks have their own DNA, so

does that mean we can't rid ourselves and our pets of them?

[VOX]

142. Native bacteria in my colon has its own DNA, so if I take an antibiotic...

for a strep throat (which also has its own unique DNA), I guess I'm committing murder by slaying all the native flora in the process.

While I respect the original poster's point of view, but I cannot accept it. I will never accept it.

[Hugin]

147. Yick...

You'd better get that looked at. Sounds bad.

[RedCappedBandit]

149. Nice post.. however

Your definition of Human Being holds no basis in reality :(

human being

n : any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae

An unborn fetus in its earliest stages is not living, therefore it is not a human being.



Now, lets say it was a human being. Then what? Does IT have a right to force the mother to give birth to it? ;-)



"""
If a woman has willingly agreed to provide food and lodging for a child, and has provided it without coercion, then she can't simply say to another human being, her child, "I'm kicking you out," whether that child lives in her house or in her body. A father must provide child support; a husband must provide alimony; you can't simply cut someone off that you have pledged to care for. That is a basic civil right that single mothers cry out for with deadbeat dads.
"""

OK, but have (in example) pregnant teenagers ever pledged to care for their unborn fetus? No, they should be given the choice

[geniph]

151. You're perfectly free to choose not to have an abortion

The sticking point here is that you're trying to tell the rest of the Democratic Party that we cannot support someone whose decision is otherwise. Sorry. That dog won't hunt.

If you're not comfortable philosophically with abortion - and make no mistake, your entire thesis in your original post is philosophical, not biological - then I suggest you don't have one. Don't presume to make that decision for someone else unless you're in a position to remove the burden of an unwanted pregnancy from her.

Legislating against abortion will never stop it. It never has. Throughout human history, women have found ways to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Many of those ways were unsafe in the extreme, and resulted in many unnecessary deaths of persons that EVERYONE agrees by any standard were independent human beings with civil rights - the women carrying the embryos. I'm uncomfortable with second and third trimester abortions myself, so I'd never have one. But I never, NEVER want to see us return to the world of coathangers and uterine sepsis. NEVER AGAIN. I remember what it was like, you see.

Women are not incubators, required to serve a 9-month sentence at your philosophical whim. Until you're in a position to remove the fetus and bring it to term without imposing an unsupportable burden on the woman, you cannot, by law and by common decency, force her to abide by YOUR decisions. Do you wish to live in a society that criminalizes miscarriage? I don't want to see the reproductive police examining women's menses every month for the presence of fertilized ova - do you?

[hollywood926]

157. Nicely stated, geniph...

Thanks. I don't know why the concept of choice always gets lost in these discussions. Why don't some people get it - if you're not the one who is pregnant, IT'S NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

[seabeyond]

158. i dont believe in abortions and i have not had an abortion

you are right, i am perfectly free to choose not to have an abortion. and that should be the end of the story. but it isnt. my belief does not get to go into law and dictate to another that they must follow my belief. they equally get to have their belief

[Spider Jerusalem]

156. "civil rights" for embryos?

Sorry, but unless it's capable of living outside the womb, breathing air, and eating instead of getting nourishment through the umbilicus, it isn't a person. That's as silly as the Catholic belief that "wasting" your jism in masturbation or fellatio or arse-fucking is a mortal sin, because *gasp* that could've been a PERSON. And your definition of "person" is bloody stupid anyway; I suppose identical twins, triplets, etc., aren't people? After all, they don't have unique DNA...their sibling(s) are genetically identical.

[Toucano]

159. Each egg a woman carries has it's own unique DNA

For that matter, so does each sperm. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00376.htm

Neither are an exact duplicate of the parent's DNA. They contain elements of the individual's DNA, but they're reorganized in new ways.

So by your definition, every egg and every sperm should be defined as persons since they have unique DNA.

You'll have to start the fight for the rights of the unfertilized, too.

[yellowcanine]

163. Masturbater mass murderer! The little guys never had a chance!

edit: mispelled masturbate. Dang.

[Toucano]

168. Is there room on the mall for a national memorial?

Future generations must never forget this terrible slaughter of the innocents!

[yankeedem]

160. Fine, you're anti-choice

I appoint YOU to tell all the 12-year old girls who have been raped that they must carry that baby to term.

After all, according to you, "The woman has willingly agreed to provide food and lodging for a child".

And if you make that exception, you're a hypocrite, because that rapist's baby has unique DNA.

See, all of the mental masterbation (pun intended) that came in to your reasoning as to how abortion is wrong is very condescending. Because if you aren't in the position where you might consider aborting, your view is irrelevant.

There is nothing wrong with being "pro-life". I am "pro-life". It's just that for me pro-life obligations don't extend outside of my household. You apparently think your rights do extend to every woman's womb. And that's where you are wrong.

[amazona]

161. that is the single most idiotic argument I have ever heard

Dude, if you think the fetus is not part of the woman's body, you are welcome to have it implanted in your testicles any day.

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

[RedCappedBandit]

162. - Marquis de sade

"Dread not infanticide; the crime is imaginary: we are always mistress of what we carry in our womb, and we do no more harm in destroying this kind of matter than in evacuating another, by medicines, when we feel the need."

[lostnfound]

165. Why not "because it has its own brainwaves"..? nt

[gollygee]

166. It doesn't matter

Here's the issue.

If I get pregnant, the fetus needs my uterus, my blood supply, my oxygen supply, etc., to live. I don't have to give the fetus those things any more than I have to provide a kidney or my plasma for a child who has been born.

[JerseygirlCT]

167. Because it depends on the woman's body for life

it cannot be considered a separate life yet, either.

We're talking the gray zone, folks. There IS no black or white answer here.

A fetus is a potential life. Many, many things can interrupt that life -- some intentional, many not. Each of those things will result in the end of that potential.

Until the fetus can survive outside the womb, it IS still a part of the woman's body - individual dna or not.

[MadHound]

170. That's nice, how YOU define life

However that is still YOUR opinion, and YOUR opinion can only effect YOU. Other people define life in different ways, in fact there are people in Africa who don't recognize, permanently name, or truly love a child until they are two years old, having experienced a plague of childhood deaths. Should we allow them to define the concept of life for everyone?

In fact a credible arguement can be made for modern robots being alive, yet we don't hear the outcry from the religious right to stop killing off our mechanical, living brethern.

The concept of life is both a difficult and personal decision to make, and one that morally cannot be imposed upon others. Yet the religious right is trying to do just that, impose their narrow view upon everyone else in this country. That is not right, moral or just.

You have what is a fine, working definition of life that fulfills your needs. I commend you, and would recommend that you follow this personal moral insight to the best of your ability. It seems that it works well for you. But you do not have the right to impose that working definition upon anyone else, period, including a spouse, girlfriend, or quite frankly anybody else in this world. Yes, you can tell people what your definition is, you can even argue why your definition should be adapted by others. But you cannot mandate that your definition be universally adapted.

The religious right in this country is trying to impose their faith based beliefs on others. This is not only immoral, but trying to rope the government into enforcing their narrow belief is a violation of church-state seperation. A big no-no here, at least for now. Contrary to the RW fundies mindset, the US is a secular nation, not a religious one, and matter of faith and belief are to be held seperate from matters of state.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

178. Ok, let's say for a moment that I agree

with your opinion about the DNA (which I don't, but it's besides the point; other people illustrated the fallacy of your argument in previous posts). Now, I defend your right to believe whatever you wish, regardless of your party affiliation, and I welcome you to the Democratic party.

However, I think that the spirit of being 'pro-choice' is to allow for the fact that you cannot force your belief or opinion on those who do not think the same as you and instead wish to have abortions.

Basically, it boils down to the old adage "If you don't want an abortion, don't have one." However, do not forbid abortion for all, including those women who sincerely need/want to have one.

I personally do not like abortion; I think that we, as women, and our male partners should try to avoid unplanned/unwanted pregnancies before sexual intercourse by using a variety of methods that are currently availabe, including the underrated abstinence 'method.'

However, I realize that there will be those who have tried birth control, those who have been raped, those who are victims of incest and those who, for financial or emotional reasons, cannot make the huge commitment required by having a child.

Having a child means not only to go through pregnancy and labor; it means caring financially, emotionally and in many other ways about the born child for many years, possibly for life. I think many people who want to make abortion illegal forget that a child takes a lot of money and time to raise.

I would rather see a happy child going to a good school with loving parents (gay, straight, whatever), than an unloved child going to a terrible school, terrible prospects and absent parents.

I also want to note that caring for a child isn't necessarily dependent on the lack of money. Being here in Manhattan, I feel very sad for those children who are very wealthy but are basically raised by a succession of nannies.

Parenting takes effort and I wish pro-life people realized that not everyone can make this enormous commitment.

[seaj11]

180. "Get used to it"?

If you don't want to be alienated, don't alienate yourself. And keep in mind that most Democrats and progressives are pro-life. We're not saying a woman should immediately elect to have an abortion and not carefully consider the alternatives.

[chefgirl]

185. skjpm

While I personally think your opinion is uninformed and stupid, I have NO right to force you to choose a different opinion.

You are free to CHOOSE whether or not to have an abortion.
You are NOT free to make that choice for me.

Get used to it.

-chef-

[Vinca]

187. When I first read this post I thought it was original, interesting and

deserving of some thought. That said, I've decided I don't think much of it. Anyone concerned about the separate DNA of an embryo should be prepared to have an embryonic transplant and carry it to term. Assuming it is born, that person should ante up the quarter of a million dollars to support the child through college (probably a conservative estimate). No one has the right to dictate whether or not a woman bears a child and it's too personal a decision for government to be involved in. If all the unwanted embryos were suddenly millions of unwanted babies, what would you do with them? Stack them in warehouses? Farm them out to abusive people like that horrible Florida couple? Will the Pope sell any of the Vatican's treasures to support them? I think we should focus on prevention - and not Dubya's fantasyland "abstinence" training - and stop the chance every sexual encounter might turn into a decision about whether or not to "keep it." It must be awful, later in life, learning you were an "it."

[skjpm]

191. I'm back from work

Gee, some of you people are really nasty. And yet you get mad when pro-life people won't even consider the Democratic party. Why should they, if they're going to get treated like this? As misguided as we may be, this is an issue which is very close to our hearts, and is on a level of the horrible loss of life in Iraq. One can be apalled by both, and want to end both, as part of a seamless pro-life stand. I believe this Pope, for all his faults, has elucidated a truly pro-life stand which includes opposition to the war, to abortion, to the death penalty, and even to defrauding workers. And there are many Roman Catholics who would love to be Democrats again. Is this how they are going to be treated when they try to rejoin?

[Vinca]

265. Sorry, I didn't intend the post to sound nasty.

I really WOULD like to know what you folks intend to do with the millions of unwanted kids. I've never, ever heard that addressed by a pro-life person. And, by the way, pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. In a perfect world there would be no need for even one abortion. I don't like it and I'm sure no one here gets pregnant so they can rush out and have an abortion. If some pro-life people didn't paint us as baby killers, we might be more respectful and more receptive.

[RetroLounge]

188. "We're here. We're pro-life. Get used to it."

Karl Rove, Is that you?

What a fucking pantload of illogical bullshit...

RL

[DoNotRefill]

189. While I agree with your right to hold a differing opinion...

I think your analysis is flawed.

If a woman with a child decides that she can't care for the child, or doesn't want the child, she can indeed give the child up for adoption, or abandon it to the State.

NO person has the right to tell another person that they MUST put their life in jeopardy if they don't want to.

And a woman is NOT an incubator.

I don't like abortion. But I think abortion MUST remain available upon demand and without apology. We should work to see that every pregnancy is a WANTED pregnancy, but even if that were the case, it would still be necessary for abortion to be a safe, legal option.

You have a right to hold opinions which differ from the party platform and still call yourself a Democrat. Hell, I disagree with the party platform on some issues. We're not supposed to be the Democratic version of Dittoheads, we're supposed to be the thinking person's party, and that means some disagreement. But don't expect to FORCE the rest of us to adopt the minority position. And I will fight you tooth and nail on this one issue, as I'm sure you'll fight me tooth and nail on other issues.

[Threedifferentones]

190. Well...

My stepfather, when the subject of abortion arises, is fond of telling people that "One of the worst crimes a human can commit is to bring an unwanted child into the world." By calling for a ban on abortion, you are attempting to commit that crime. Anyone who would rather abort their fetus than raise it is clearly not ready to be a parent, and that means outlawing abortion will bring even more unwanted and neglected children into our scoiety. Are you ready to take care of them?

I might also point out that banning abortion will not end the practice. Some women will simply resort to less effective and more dangerous methods than the ones currently used.

[Malva Zebrina]

193. Came late to the thread and have not read the entire

If an embryo has it's own DNA, then surely it is a leech--a parasite-- like a tumor, on it's host, the mother. As such, she has the right and can opt to expell it if she wishes.

So much for the argument of different DNA

Keep at these fallacious arguments to force women to pregnancy and you go further down a slippery slope.

The unborn, as you like to tuse the religious right meme, or a clump of cells ,or an embryo has NO rights. It also has NO rights to leech off the mother without her consent.

Because you insist upon the fallacy that a potential human being has rights, then clearly your argument is directed against the rights of women--real human born beings,btw, who contribute to the community and have a social security number.

Why not also demand a social security number as a right of a blob of cells.

[skjpm]

194. Incidentally, I did not propose a ban on abortions

I said that sometimes the right-to-life of the woman and the right-to-life of the fetus come into conflict, and each case must be looked at on an individual basis. I think that's pretty open-ended.

[Malva Zebrina]

196. No you are wrong

and your argument is flawed. The potential of a blob of cells has nothing to do with the logic that a foreign entity has invaded a woman's body with it's own DNA, is a leech and a parasite and as such she has the right to expel that alien invasion.

Your argument for the rights of a "otential human being,is seriously flawed.

So is a sperm and so is an egg both are a "potential" human being.

Would you say that a sperm has rights, or an ovum has rights?

You are, I think, engaging in this seriously flawed

argument to diminish women and their rights, not to defend the rights of a blob of cells. Certainly, you are not in the argument to uphiold the rights of women, their health, their ability to choose to run their lives as they choose, like you do, if you do, and to do so legally and freely under the law.

There are pregnancy tests available now that can determine a pregnancy before a missed period. ARe you insisting that the clump of cells is a human being with rights? If so, why are you not the sperm police also, or the ovum police.?

[skjpm]

212. you are, to the universe, just a blob of cells

Compared to the galaxy, what are you? Why should the amount of cells involved have to do with rights?

[mairceridwen]

246. yeah

and the galaxy can abort me any time she wants...what's your point?

[DoNotRefill]

215. Have you ever read the 13th Amendment?

Slavery is illegal....be it based upon skin color, or based upon a person being pregnant.

[strategery blunder]

251. Then theoretically, a draft should be illegal, too

but it isn't.

/end thread hijack:)

[DoNotRefill]

255. Well, just because the courts have never held that....

doesn't mean that I necessarily disagree with you.

The thing is that a draft is administered with due process of law.

[liberalhistorian]

269. Well, as a woman who's had the experience

of an unplanned pregnancy (see the gory details on my other posts on this thread), I take issue with the fact that you or any other person besides me would have had the right to determine my decision affecting MY life. I ultimately chose not to have an abortion, but I was glad the choice was there and I resented the hell out of people like you who attempted to force me into a particular decision when they didn't even know me at all. Once my son was born, I never, ever heard from them again; and yet, the work was just beginning.

As far as nastiness to the other side-THEY are the ones who have been extremely nasty and vilifying to US, equating pro-choice with pro-abortion (it most defintely is NOT. I don't know ANYONE who is "pro-abortion", we just believe women should have that choice available even if we wouldn't have one ourselves), calling us baby-killers, screaming that we're going to hell and ruining the country and that we're the cause of 9/11, etc., etc., etc. You can't win with these people. When I was pregnant, all I heard from them was that if I had an abortion I was an evil, horrible person who was the cause of the downfall of American civilization. Now that I'm a single mother (my son is almost 14 now), all I've heard for the past 13 years is that I'm an evil, horrible person who's the cause of the downfall of American civilization. They need to make up their fucking minds.

And you want to talk Hillary Clinton? Fine, let's do that. She and Bill have repeatedly said that if everyone claiming to be "pro-life" in this country would adopt a child or be a foster parent, there would be no problems with hundreds of thousands of foster children languishing in the state's care because they can't find adoptive parents, and the rate of children in poverty, hunger, and abusive or neglectful situations would be drastically reduced. AND THEY'RE RIGHT!

The same people screaming against abortion are the same people slashing social programs for children and families, including food stamps, FOSTER CARE AND COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES BOARDS, etc., left and right and boasting about doing so. We can't get them to give a shit about actual, real, live, born children. We have millions of Americans in desperate need, the majority of them children, and you and people like you are only caring about and fighting for those who aren't even born yet? I'm sorry, but there's something REALLY wrong with that picture.

[leesa]

195. So do tumors, viruses, etc...should we allow them to grow to term?

[booley]

197. Mitochondria has it's own DNA

does that mean that mitochondria aren't part of every cell of your body?

Gametes don't have your exact DNA. They have half of your DNA and since Chromosomes sometimes switch parts, that just further makes the DNA different from thie creators.

And the price of tea of china is 5 cents. Which is about as relevant to abortion as the above. which is not at all.

ironicly, for a person saying you are pro-life (as in anti-abortion I presume?) you sum up the pro-choice position beautifully..."There are cases in which the unborn's right to life comes into conflict with the woman's right to life. ..... Each case must be decided on an individual basis. No law can successfully cover all possibilities."

This is the basis of choice. That ultimatly the choice must belong to the person who has to bear the brunt of any consequences of aborting or giving birth.. the WOMAN. After all, unlike the anti-abortion side, pro-choicers aren't trying to force any decision on anyone. pro-chopicers figure YOU know what;s best for you and anybody you may put in this world. If a women decides to carry to term, you aren't going to get pro-choice people protesting. Baby gifts maybe, protests? No.

I am not altogether unsympathetic to your point. Certainly prenatal care for both fetus and MOTHER should be available for anyone wanting it. (and the fatc that repubs won't cover women for pre-natl care is relevatory) And like most americans, my support for a women's choice to abort lessens the closer to term the pregnancy.

BUT you seem to be making a broad generalization about abortion. and attempts to give legal rights to a cluster of cells won't fly with most of us.
A more helpful idea may be to do two things..

1. Work against the cuases of abortions. it's not a secret that as poverty rates go up, so does abortion. Pollution causes birth defects. Lack of universal health care makes pregnancies more dangerouse. we have thousands of poeple growing out of the foster care system every year, people who have learned few to any life skills. And abstinence only has now been shown to increase the risky sexual behaviors that lead to unwanted pregnancies.
Fix these problems and you will see abortions become fewer and fewer.

and 2. find the common ground with pro-choice people. beleive it or not, you have plenty. pro-choicers will fight you if you try to restrict access to clinics or force women to have children they feel they can't support or bear.
But start tackeling the issues above, and I cant' see any pro-choice people fighting to have less poverty, pollution or providing health care for all.

My point is..people who call themselves pro-life have to decide if they want to outlaw abortion..or if they want to reduce abortions to the lowest rate possible.

Becuase as history shows, you can't do both.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

199. My shit has DNA...does that make it worth saving?

If so, I'll be happy to mail it to you

[Misunderestimator]

221. LMFAO!!!

That's why I :loveya:

(and... you're shit don't stink either :))

[Swamp Rat]

236. HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! n/t

[retnavyliberal]

201. The poster has the right

to his/her beliefs and opinions. I do not see that s/he is "forcing" anything on anyone. S/he can, and should, debate her point as much as she wants. We are the democratic party. We are SUPPOSED to be the party of tolerance. We should be able to talk like reasonable adults and not simply berate someone that has a different point of view. To coin a phrase, "Can't we all just get along?" Until we stop fighting among ourselves, we have very little chance of defeating the Repubs.

As for the discussion, the real question is when is a life a life. The Constitution says "...any person BORN in the United States...". Using this, a fetus is not a life. If it is determined that it IS a life from conception, then that same fetus should be considered a life for other issues such as determination of dependents for tax purposes, food stamp issues, ect.

What other programs can we enroll our new citizens in?

[RetroLounge]

204. Oh really, not forcing on anyone?

"There are many who want to see the Democratic party extend it's fight for civil rights to the unborn, and I am one of them. Prove to me that the woman's and the unborn's DNA are the same, then I might change my mind. Until then--We're here. We're pro-life. Get used to it."

Try reading again...

RL

[retnavyliberal]

206. so you are so unsure...

of your own beliefs that simply the fact that they "...are here" makes you feel threatened into feeling forced? I hope most of us are more strong willed then that.

[Name removed]

209. Deleted message

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

[retnavyliberal]

238. Thank you for making my point for me

and you did such a good job of it too! If you had read the rest of MY post you would have seen that I offered up some actual debate points, not just ridicule.

[Name removed]

239. Deleted message

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

[retnavyliberal]

241. LOL awwww now you have gone and hurt my feelings

I have not been to this site as long as you have so my opinion is less valid? I see that with all of your posts that you have finely tuned your logic centers.

[RaleighNCDUer]

248. It appears to me that the poster is holding the abortion gun to the

head of the party and saying 'do as I say or I'll shoot'. Saying that the party must go with an anti-choice stance or lose anti-choice dems is holding the party hostage to the minority. And what kind of 'good dem' is going to leave the party because of a single issue? Sounds more like repub tactics to me.

You can be pro life and pro choice at the same time, simply by accepting that you have no right to impose your morality/religion on anyone else while you choose to be pro life. You cannot, however, be anti-choice and pro-choice at the same time. Just can't happen.

[retnavyliberal]

280. It sounds to me

like the poster is saying he or she is a pro-life Dem and plans to be one, however, will not stop lobbying to have her point of view addressed. That to me is the Democratic Process.

[superconnected]

205. You have an interesting pov, but I don't think it works for all women

"I define a person as a human being with its own unique DNA. If you were to take a cell from a fetus and clone it, you would not get a twin of the mother, but a twin of the fetus. Therefore, the fetus is its own separate being. This seems a concrete, unarguable way to define a person: a human being with its own unique DNA."

I agree that a human has 46 chromosomes and a fetus is a human at 46 chromosomes.

I respect your opnions about protecting the fetus.

And, I consider the fetus a life from the start.

I am still pro-choice though, for fetus's. I'm not pro choice for aborting devoloped babys unless there are medical necessities.

For me its a sentience issue. At fetus stage I do not believe it is a sentient life form. By about 5 months term however, I see it as a devoloped baby, not a fetus, and at that point it becomes killing a baby.

I think your reason doesn't work for all women because some, like me, will acknowledge it's a human life and still be pro choice. Women have different tolerance levels.

[uppityperson]

211. None of my husbands give me alimony. None of them. Just crap.

That's not fair either.

Alimony is not something husbands must provide.

[liontamer]

218. As something not part of a woman's body

it is a foreign object that can and should be removed if unwanted.

[greenohio]

219. There are differences of opinion . We need to embrace pro-life Dems

and work as a team to beat back the repukes.

[Baconfoot]

223. No way. If anything, we need to work with pro-choice Republicans. NT

[greenohio]

263. I'm with Dean on this one.

Former Vermont governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean, who supports abortion rights, said the Democrats should "embrace" antiabortion voters and expand the term "pro-life" to such social issues as providing for children's medical care.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/12/19/democrats_eye_softer_image_on_abortion/

[superconnected]

270. when the dem party no longer accepts pro life women, I'm gone.

And I'm pro choice.

Btw, statistically it should end up that half of the women in the dem party are pro-life, since that choice isn't really divided by political affiliate; as you would have learned had you hung on feminst boards like the now defunct MS. Boards.

It really ticks me of that Republicans and now apparently Democrats try to pigeon-hole women in those catagorys.

Pro-life is something the patriarchy holds up - dem and rep men.
Sure rep males in politics have grapsed on it but society as a whole didn't go adopt one way or another because of political affiliation.

[JanMichael]

220. That's a lovely reason for YOU not to have an abortion

stay out of other's people's business.

Stephanie

[skjpm]

225. They're my slaves--stay out of my business

They weren't human, either. They couldn't sue, couldn't vote, and had to have other people protect their rights. They could be killed at the discretion of their owner. Were we right to get in their business?

[JanMichael]

227. Bad topic; I am a 7th generation Southerner

from a family who both owned slaves, and--through the Quaker side of my family--were a documented part of the underground railroad.

A fetus...no matter how much you love the little suckers...are not viable human beings.

You might think all fetuses are just precious---good for you...the slavery argument is thoughtless garbage--apples to oranges.

Sorry dear. Try again.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

228. That's a strawman...those weren't fetuses out in the fields picking cotton

[JanMichael]

230. However, if those fetuses would pick cotton.....

I am not going there...I am not going there....I am not going there....this is not funny....this is not funny....

An Underuterus Railroad.....(Michael's idea)

this is not funny...this is not funny...this is not funny.....

Please quit giving me those mental images....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

231. I can see the fetus singing now...."OH LAWDY..pick a bale of cotton"

Great moments in faulty reasoning

[Misunderestimator]

232. OMG

Go Michael!! :thumbsup:

[JanMichael]

234. That was mostly Stephanie.

I just added the Underuterus Railroad bit.

It seemed appropos.

[Misunderestimator]

235. I can see it now...

surgeries at each stop between women and their umbilical cords passing the fetus to and fro... oh no... you got me started...

[Swamp Rat]

237. LOL! n/t

:D

[skjpm]

240. Don't laugh at me. . .

just because I'm different.

[Swamp Rat]

257. "Underuterus Railroad" is fucking funny! HAPPY MARDI GRAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HAPPY MARDI GRAS! :D :party:

[ultraist]

260. BWHAHAHAH!!! Check out her pasties! LOL!

[Misunderestimator]

222. Isn't that special... a fetus should have civil rights, but after it's a

living human being and gay, it loses its rights...

[skjpm]

226. My pro-life stand includes gay rights

Don't create a straw man here. Read the posts. Equal rights for all.

[Misunderestimator]

229. No straw man here. I believe in women's rights to their own bodies.

You believe that a woman should be under government control for nine months, because ultimately, extending rights to a fetus will lead to extreme penalties for women who might do anything that could be perceived as being harmful to that fetus. Such as having a sip of wine by mistake, or traumatizing the fetus by performing a stressful job, or falling asleep while driving and crashing... the possibilities are endless.

Besides the fact that the fetus IS a part of the woman's body.

[Ilsa]

233. Why the hell can't we concentrate on those that are already here?

Instead of fetuses that may not even survive until a mature gestational age?

To me, the so-called "pro-life" movement stands for back alley abortions.

[sonicx]

242. Forget all this. All I wanna know is...

What restrictions on abortion do you want...

[donheld]

247. Until that "DNA" can survive without the woman's body

It's still part of the woman's body. I have a harder time with abortions in the last trimester, i think those are very rare. Then i think it's still a choice the woman alone has to make. This should not be up to the dictates of laws etc. I very seriously doubt that ANYONE takes abortions lightly.

[L.A.dweller]

250. Really? The last time I recalled a fetus lives in the womb

for 9 months, maybe even a little longer.

[sans qualia]

253. Tumors have unique DNA. Are tumors persons?

(edited for clarity)

[in_cog_ni_to]

254. I'm really sick of this crap.

#1...it's none of your damn business what I do with my body.

#2...it's none of your business what anyone does with their body.

#3...stop spreading the repuke's bullshit about abortion.

#4...if you're anti-choice, why are you a Democrat?

#5...a 2 day old "fetus" is tissue. It couldn't possibly survive outside my womb. It is NOT a baby.

#5...unless and until you personally are willing to adopt, feed, clothe, provide health care and spend every moment of your life taking care of every unwanted baby, then I suggest you worry about your own damn body and keep your nose out of mine. OK?

Do you have ANY idea how many unwanted children there are in this country? How many have you adopted? Would you adopt a downs syndrome baby? How about a mentally disabled baby? Or a physically disabled baby? Perhaps you prefer a drug addicted baby? Or maybe a baby who was born with no chance of ever walking, talking, eating on his/her own, a vegetable. Would YOU adopt those children? The hypocrisy of this makes me sick. anti-choice people stop caring at birth. They take away welfare, social programs, health care, pre-school, Head Start, school breakfast for the poor and yet have the friggin' NERVE to say they are pro-life. What a damn joke.

[ultraist]

259. I agree! And look at the Social programs W just cut!

How hypocritical. This OP author keeps posting threads with the same ole' Repuke talking points, again and again.

I've seen these anti-choicer/anti-women's rights people hit blogs this way. The ONLY thing they discuss is their ANTI-choice position.

[bling bling]

256. This is one of those issues that is generally pretty black or white.

I will never be able to "get used to" laws that ban abortion. Ever. Probably that's how you feel about my position. Having said that. Do you see any gray area here where there is room for compromise? Is there anything you would be able and willing to accept and live with and "get used to", beyond changing the law to ban all abortions?

[Swamp Rat]

261. What? Did they give you a pod too? HAHAHA!!! HAPPY MARDI GRAS!!!

:D :party: HAPPY MARDI GRAS!!!



edit: HAPPY MARDI GRAS!!! :D

[Hippo_Tron]

264. Outlawing abortion will NOT stop it

There's something to be said for the fact that abortion rates went UP under Raygun, Bush I, and Bush II and DOWN under Clinton. Banning abortion means that women will just resort to doing it in underground clinics or trying it themselves VIA coat-hanger abortions. I disagree with your beliefs on what a life is, however if you are serious about preserving the life of the fetus, then you should join Democrats in our fight for good healthcare, childcare, and sex education that doesn't try to pretend that we still live in the 1950's.

That is how you reduce abortions, you get to the source of the problem, you don't just ban it. That's what they did with drugs and so far it's work real well /sarcasm.

[Rebel_blogger]

266. Actually, a US District Judge ruled ...

that a fetus DOES have civil rights.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040528-115955-4373r.htm

Please, note, this judge has ruled favorably in pro-choice cases in the past.

[Hippo_Tron]

272. Um okay, that wasn't what I was talking about

I was discussing how banning abortion won't stop it.

[superconnected]

271. when the dem parth no longer accepts pro-life women, I'm gone

And I'm pro-choice.

statistically it should end up that half of the women in the dem party are pro-life, since that choice isn't really divided by political affiliate; as you would have learned had you hung on feminst boards like the now defunct MS. Boards.

It really ticks me of that Republicans and now apparently Democrats try to pigeon-hole women in those catagorys.

Pro-life is something the patriarchy holds up - dem and rep men.
Sure rep males in politics have grapsed on it but society as a whole didn't go adopt one way or another because of political affiliation.

-----
Repeat of my post from above as I answered someone way up and When I should have replied to original message.
-----

I feel like I'm turning a little greener every day.

[liberal43110]

274. Criteria to think about

From a great website that can help you think about the criteria to evaluate abortion (www.elroy.net):

All of the arguments against abortion boil down to six specific questions. The first five deal with the nature of the zygote-embryo-fetus growing inside a mother's womb. The last one looks at the morality of the practice. These questions are:

Is it alive?
Is it human?
Is it a person?
Is it physically independent?
Does it have human rights?
Is abortion murder?

Let's take a look at each of these questions. We'll show how anti-abortionists use seemingly logical answers to back up their cause, but then we'll show how their arguments actually support the fact that abortion is moral.

1. Is it alive?

Yes. Pro Choice supporters who claim it isn't do themselves and their cause a disservice. Of course it's alive. It's a biological mechanism that converts nutrients and oxygen into energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply, and grow. It's alive.

Anti-abortion activists often mistakenly use this fact to support their cause. "Life begins at conception" they claim. And they would be right. The genesis of a new human life begins when the egg with 23 chromosomes joins with a sperm with 23 chromosomes and creates a fertilized cell, called a zygote, with 46 chromosomes. The single-cell zygote contains all the DNA necessary to grow into an independent, conscious human being. It is a potential person.

But being alive does not give the zygote full human rights--including the right not to be aborted during its gestation.

A single-cell ameba also coverts nutrients and oxygen into biological energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply and grow. It also contains a full set of its own DNA. It shares everything in common with a human zygote except that it is not a potential person. Left to grow, it will always be an ameba--never a human person. It is just as alive as the zygote, but we would never defend its human rights based solely on that fact.

And neither can the anti-abortionist, which is why we must answer the following questions as well.

2. Is it human?

Yes. Again, Pro Choice defenders stick their feet in their mouths when they defend abortion by claiming the zygote-embryo-fetus isn't human. It is human. Its DNA is that of a human. Left to grow, it will become a full human person.

And again, anti-abortion activists often mistakenly use this fact to support their cause. They are fond of saying, "an acorn is an oak tree in an early stage of development; likewise, the zygote is a human being in an early stage of development." And they would be right. But having a full set of human DNA does not give the zygote full human rights--including the right not to be aborted during its gestation.

Don't believe me? Here, try this: reach up to your head, grab one strand of hair, and yank it out. Look at the base of the hair. That little blob of tissue at the end is a hair follicle. It also contains a full set of human DNA. Granted it's the same DNA pattern found in every other cell in your body, but in reality the uniqueness of the DNA is not what makes it a different person. Identical twins share the exact same DNA, and yet we don't say that one is less human than the other, nor are two twins the exact same person. It's not the configuration of the DNA that makes a zygote human; it's simply that it has human DNA. Your hair follicle shares everything in common with a human zygote except that it is a little bit bigger and it is not a potential person. (These days even that's not an absolute considering our new-found ability to clone humans from existing DNA, even the DNA from a hair follicle.)

Your hair follicle is just as human as the zygote, but we would never defend its human rights based solely on that fact.

And neither can the anti-abortionist, which is why the following two questions become critically important to the abortion debate.

3. Is it a person?

No. It's merely a potential person.

Webster's Dictionary lists a person as "being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity." Anti-abortionists claim that each new fertilized zygote is already a new person because its DNA is uniquely different than anyone else's. In other words, if you're human, you must be a person.

Of course we've already seen that a simple hair follicle is just as human as a single-cell zygote, and, that unique DNA doesn't make the difference since two twins are not one person. It's quite obvious, then, that something else must occur to make one human being different from another. There must be something else that happens to change a DNA-patterned body into a distinct person. (Or in the case of twins, two identically DNA-patterned bodies into two distinct persons.)

There is, and most people inherently know it, but they have trouble verbalizing it for one very specific reason.

The defining mark between something that is human and someone who is a person is 'consciousness.' It is the self-aware quality of consciousness that makes us uniquely different from others. This self-awareness, this sentient consciousness is also what separates us from every other animal life form on the planet. We think about ourselves. We use language to describe ourselves. We are aware of ourselves as a part of the greater whole.

The problem is that consciousness normally doesn't occur until months, even years, after a baby is born. This creates a moral dilemma for the defender of abortion rights. Indeed, they inherently know what makes a human into a person, but they are also aware such individual personhood doesn't occur until well after birth. To use personhood as an argument for abortion rights, therefore, also leads to the argument that it should be okay to kill a 3-month-old baby since it hasn't obtained consciousness either.

Anti-abortionists use this perceived problem in an attempt to prove their point. In a debate, a Pro Choice defender will rightly state that the difference between a fetus and a full-term human being is that the fetus isn't a person. The anti-abortion activist, being quite sly, will reply by asking his opponent to define what makes someone into a person. Suddenly the Pro Choice defender is at a loss for words to describe what he or she knows innately. We know it because we lived it. We know we have no memory of self-awareness before our first birthday, or even before our second. But we also quickly become aware of the "problem" we create if we say a human doesn't become a person until well after its birth. And we end up saying nothing. The anti-abortionist then takes this inability to verbalize the nature of personhood as proof of their claim that a human is a person at conception.

But they are wrong. Their "logic" is greatly flawed. Just because someone is afraid to speak the truth doesn't make it any less true.

And in reality, the Pro Choice defender's fear is unfounded. They are right, and they can state it without hesitation. A human indeed does not become a full person until consciousness. And consciousness doesn't occur until well after the birth of the child. But that does not automatically lend credence to the anti-abortionist's argument that it should, therefore, be acceptable to kill a three-month-old baby because it is not yet a person.

It is still a potential person. And after birth it is an independent potential person whose existence no longer poses a threat to the physical wellbeing of another. To understand this better, we need to look at the next question.

4. Is it physically independent?

No. It is absolutely dependent on another human being for its continued existence. Without the mother's life-giving nutrients and oxygen it would die. Throughout gestation the zygote-embryo-fetus and the mother's body are symbiotically linked, existing in the same physical space and sharing the same risks. What the mother does affects the fetus. And when things go wrong with the fetus, it affects the mother.

Anti-abortionists claim fetal dependence cannot be used as an issue in the abortion debate. They make the point that even after birth, and for years to come, a child is still dependent on its mother, its father, and those around it. And since no one would claim its okay to kill a child because of its dependency on others, we can't, if we follow their logic, claim it's okay to abort a fetus because of its dependence.

What the anti-abortionist fails to do, however, is differentiate between physical dependence and social dependence. Physical dependence does not refer to meeting the physical needs of the child--such as in the anti-abortionist's argument above. That's social dependence; that's where the child depends on society--on other people--to feed it, clothe it, and love it. Physical dependence occurs when one life form depends solely on the physical body of another life form for its existence.

Physical dependence was cleverly illustrated back in 1971 by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson. She created a scenario in which a woman is kidnapped and wakes up to find she's been surgically attached to a world-famous violinist who, for nine months, needs her body to survive. After those nine months, the violinist can survive just fine on his own, but he must have this particular woman in order to survive until then.

Thompson then asks if the woman is morally obliged to stay connected to the violinist who is living off her body. It might be a very good thing if she did--the world could have the beauty that would come from such a violinist--but is she morally obliged to let another being use her body to survive?

This very situation is already conceded by anti-abortionists. They claim RU-486 should be illegal for a mother to take because it causes her uterus to flush its nutrient-rich lining, thus removing a zygote from its necessary support system and, therefore, ending its short existence as a life form. Thus the anti-abortionist's own rhetoric only proves the point of absolute physical dependence.

This question becomes even more profound when we consider a scenario where it's not an existing person who is living off the woman's body, but simply a potential person, or better yet, a single-cell zygote with human DNA that is no different than the DNA in a simple hair follicle.

To complicate it even further, we need to realize that physical dependence also means a physical threat to the life of the mother. The World Health Organization reports that nearly 670,000 women die from pregnancy-related complications each year (this number does not include abortions). That's 1,800 women per day. We also read that in developed countries, such as the United States and Canada, a woman is 13 times more likely to die bringing a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion.

Therefore, not only is pregnancy the prospect of having a potential person physically dependent on the body of one particular women, it also includes the women putting herself into a life-threatening situation for that potential person.

Unlike social dependence, where the mother can choose to put her child up for adoption or make it a ward of the state or hire someone else to take care of it, during pregnancy the fetus is absolutely physically dependent on the body of one woman. Unlike social dependence, where a woman's physical life is not threatened by the existence of another person, during pregnancy, a woman places herself in the path of bodily harm for the benefit of a DNA life form that is only a potential person--even exposing herself to the threat of death.

This brings us to the next question: do the rights of a potential person supercede the rights of the mother to control her body and protect herself from potential life-threatening danger?

5. Does it have human rights?

Yes and No.

A potential person must always be given full human rights unless its existence interferes with the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness of an already existing conscious human being. Thus, a gestating fetus has no rights before birth and full rights after birth.

If a fetus comes to term and is born, it is because the mother chooses to forgo her own rights and her own bodily security in order to allow that future person to gestate inside her body. If the mother chooses to exercise control over her own body and to protect herself from the potential dangers of childbearing, then she has the full right to terminate the pregnancy.

Anti-abortion activists are fond of saying "The only difference between a fetus and a baby is a trip down the birth canal." This flippant phrase may make for catchy rhetoric, but it doesn't belie the fact that indeed "location" makes all the difference in the world.

It's actually quite simple. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other--and thus they don't have equal rights. In the case of a pregnant woman, giving a "right to life" to the potential person in the womb automatically cancels out the mother's right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

After birth, on the other hand, the potential person no longer occupies the same body as the mother, and thus, giving it full human rights causes no interference with another's right to control her body. Therefore, even though a full-term human baby may still not be a person, after birth it enjoys the full support of the law in protecting its rights. After birth its independence begs that it be protected as if it were equal to a fully-conscience human being. But before birth its lack of personhood and its threat to the women in which it resides makes abortion a completely logical and moral choice.

Which brings us to our last question, which is the real crux of the issue....

6. Is abortion murder?

No. Absolutely not.

It's not murder if it's not an independent person. One might argue, then, that it's not murder to end the life of any child before she reaches consciousness, but we don't know how long after birth personhood arrives for each new child, so it's completely logical to use their independence as the dividing line for when full rights are given to a new human being.

Using independence also solves the problem of dealing with premature babies. Although a preemie is obviously still only a potential person, by virtue of its independence from the mother, we give it the full rights of a conscious person. This saves us from setting some other arbitrary date of when we consider a new human being a full person. Older cultures used to set it at two years of age, or even older. Modern religious cultures want to set it at conception, which is simply wishful thinking on their part. As we've clearly demonstrated, a single-cell zygote is no more a person that a human hair follicle.

But that doesn't stop religious fanatics from dumping their judgements and their anger on top of women who choose to exercise the right to control their bodies. It's the ultimate irony that people who claim to represent a loving God resort to scare tactics and fear to support their mistaken beliefs.

It's even worse when you consider that most women who have an abortion have just made the most difficult decision of their life. No one thinks abortion is a wonderful thing. No one tries to get pregnant just so they can terminate it. Even though it's not murder, it still eliminates a potential person, a potential daughter, a potential son. It's hard enough as it is. Women certainly don't need others telling them it's a murder.

It's not. On the contrary, abortion is an absolutely moral choice for any woman wishing to control her body.

[Misunderestimator]

275. Now that's a lot to chew on...

(good, rational arguments, that are about to be completely misconstrued or wholly ignored...)

let's watch...

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

277. I will NOT get used to it

[cags]

279. If a tick with its own DNA embeds itself in my back..........hmmmm

:silly: