The problem with the abortion issue...

[JohnnyCougar]

While Democrats respect life more than Republicans in 99 out of the 100 political issues out there, as far as abortion goes, they are not perceived as pro life. Unfortunately, this issue seems to trump them all when it comes to alot of independents and conservative Democrats.

Thus, abortion is a wedge issue in our otherwise perfect report card on being pro-life. I have meet countless people who are really independent who just cannot support a party that they see as standing for abortion. It is sad that they don't see the big picture, but we have to realize that most people don't have the capability of seeing the big picture.

The problem is that the issue has been framed wrong. To a rather large group of people, it appears that we have no respect for a fetus. To us, it looks like this large group of people has no respect for the troubles a woman can go through by being pregnant.

I can see it from both sides. Having sex is a risky behavior, and getting pregnant is one of those risks. If you don't want to get pregnant, the only 100% sure way not to is to avoid having sex. Now, I understand that most people don't want to do this. But taking narcotics is also a risk. It is fun, it gives you a rush, but if you injure yourself or screw yourself over on narcotics, it is YOUR FAULT. It is fun, but it also carries a risk factor. If you don't want to OD on drugs, just don't do them. If you don't want to get pregnant, just don't have sex. If you do, be willing to accept the consequences.

Having to have an abortion is hurtful psychologically for women. When a woman has a fetus inside of her kicking and rolling around, it is hard for her to think of it as "not a human." The way Democrats frame the issue is that "It is not a human." That frame of mind is quite disturbing to ALOT of people, including a sizable number of Democrats. When we frame the issue, we must be more careful to show that we really are sensitive to the fetus AND the mother, and we recognize that it is a tough situation. In many cases, the choice of abortion is just as difficult as the choice of no abortion.

When Democrats say that "the fetus is not a human" or that "so you think women should not be able to have sex unless they want a child," it comes off as extremely egotistical and insensitive. Nobody is going to tell you that self indulgence is more important than protecting both baby and mother from a difficult situation. If we truly are the party that respects life, we must show our respect for the life and the fetus. We can be pro-choice AND pro-life at the same time. We are not acting like that when we say that the fetus is not a life. It most certainly is a life. Whether it can or can't live without the mother is a moot point. If we are to end the life of a fetus, we must do so only if it improves the lives of others, such as in the instance of rape, threat to the mother's health, and incest. But we must frame it this way because we do respect the life of a fetus, instead of saying that a fetus is not a human. That is just plain wrong in the eyes of many, and it comes off as insensitive to others.

[Warpy]

1. The GOP is PRO REPRODUCTIVE SLAVERY

That's the only way to frame it when talkiing about abortion.

They haven't even done a very good job of that, since every one of them from Ronnie on down have sold the wack jobs out on that issue.

As for other positions, the only thing to call them is UNCHRISTIAN.

True morality is about far more than sex, and it applies to oneself as well as other people.

[Dookus]

2. the majority

of americans support keeping abortion legal. There's absolutely no reason for Dems to be defensive on this issue.

They needs to push the republicans to explain what THEIR answer is. How would they enforce a ban on abortion? Let THEM be on the defensive.

[JohnnyCougar]

4. True...

But the issue is still a wedge issue. Even though a minority are on the Republicans' side, that minority could easily be voting Democrat if it weren't for the poor framing of the abortion issue.

One of the best issues to push is that poverty causes abortion, and Republicans cause poverty. There is no response to that that the Republicans can use. We are both pro-life and pro-choice, and all true pro-lifers vote against poverty.

Making abortion illegal and increasing poverty like the Republicans want makes more abortions, except for those abortions are more grusome and hurtful, because they are done in alleys.

[agitpropagent9]

13. not a given

more than 1 in 5 democrats believe that abortions should not be permitted at all.

more than 1 in 3 believe that abortion should be legal, but with stricter limits.

total: 56% of democrats believe that abortion should be further restricted or completely outlawed.

[Dookus]

18. A december, 2004

poll by the Washington Post and ABC news found 55% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or almost all cases. Only 17% believe it should be illegal in all cases.

[agitpropagent9]

23. last month

jan 2005 (cbs news/ new york times)

26% believe it should not be permitted at all

35% believe it should be further restricted.

[Dookus]

27. yes

many people believe it should be further restricted. They wrongly believe late-term abortions are common.

I suspect you can get very different results based on how the question is asked. But a sizable majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal in the first trimester, certainly. My point is we need to make the anti-choicers tell us exactly how they propose to enforce a law against abortion.

I think support for their position would wane significantly if people had to contemplate imprisoning women who want to end a pregnancy.

The poll I posted was only a month earlier than yours. I don't believe there was a significant change in people's position in that time.

[agitpropagent9]

32. generally agree and

i guess my point is that the hyperbolic statements about abortion that rely on "repigs are this" and "GOP is that" belie the reality that, in a crowd of 100 good democrats at any gathering or rally, roughly half are not going to be for unfettered abortion-on-demand.

and the assumption that abortion is a totally homogenous issue where progressives can just close ranks and see it as an exclusive "us against them" issue is flawed thinking, likely to alienate some.

[Baconfoot]

126. Sure and three and four students say flag burning is illegal.

What's your point?

In the United States we have representative democracy, but this WAS NEVER supposed to mean that elected officials simply mirrored the views of their constituents. That kind of "representation" caused problems under the Articles of Confederation. What we're supposed to have instead is elected officials with those qualities necessary for writing and voting for good legislation.

[agitpropagent9]

136. cool your bacon, bacon

i was simply responding to data that was poste before. anyone that doesn't think that abortion is an issue that splits americans nearly right down the middle is misinformed.

the implications of that on the law? i'm not saying that there should be a plebiscite on it.

[Dhalgren]

3. The "framing" should not involve the fetus, at all.

This is an issue of a citizen's right to self determination. A citizen of this country MUST have the right to make decisions regarding her own health and well being. This is an issue of privacy and unalienable rights, period. The fetus, when life starts, and other third party opinions are simply not relevant.

[JohnnyCougar]

6. You exemplify the problem.

Of course the fetus is an issue. I don't know how you can deny that. Even if it isn't an issue to you, it is to most others.

[Dhalgren]

11. And that would be your "third party opinion".

You see, it isn't any of your business. This is a privacy issue. An unalienable right issue. You can have all the opinions you want about any number of things, but it does not impinge upon another citizen's rights. I am sorry if this doesn't fit into the framing that seems to be popular, but that is the framing, not the issue itself.

[JohnnyCougar]

26. Well, the framing sadly matters when we want Democrats to get elected

Ignoring the framing and focusing on an issue is a formula for losing.

[Lindacooks]

115. Nope, Dhalgren is right.

If Democrats framed this as what it actually is, a privacy issue, voters would flock to the polls in favor of the Democrats.

All a Democrat has to do is talk about how Repukes want to invade your body, be right at your doctor's side at the stirrups, and shove BIG GOVERNMENT down your throat.

Which is exactly what Repukes want to do. I get so furious when I hear that Repuke crap 'get the goverment off the backs of the people' when what they actually mean is 'get government into the bedroom and the doctor's office'.

[Baconfoot]

127. IHaveAlwaysBeenCuriousAs2whyIt'sNeverCastAsAfreedomOfReligion issue NT

(read "only rarely" for "never" above)

[duhneece]

125. As a woman who had a legal abortion over 30 yrs ago...

I have never regretted my decision. I have a daughter who asked me how I felt about it when she was 16. I meditated--prayed, "God-the-mother-God-the-father, if it was wrong when I chose an abortion, NOW is the time to let me know, because I'm not feeling any guilt. I do wish I hadn't become pregnant, but I don't regret the abortion." From the deepest part of my being, I could tell my daughter I felt no guilt, no shame, not really any sadness."

I am strongly, adamently opposed to making abortions illegal, making abortions criminal.

But I hope I understand Johnny's point about framing and can't understand so much anger at him.

I'm using the framing concept of 'pro-criminalization'...and I'm now trying to think of other ways to express how one could see the fetus. I don't see the fetus as fully human as it is not viable outside the mother without extreme means. I think of it as a 'potential human being' in the same way as an acorn is a potential oak tree, but not one in its present state. Well, a pretty lame attempt to look at the issue of feelings for the fetus, but my brain is starting to get into gear.

Thank you, Johnny, for giving me a direction to consider.

[Lindacooks]

164. Nope, you exemplify the problem.

This is a privacy issue, plain and simple. Do we want the government to control women's bodies and lives, or do we want women to control their own bodies and lives?

THAT's the way to frame it.

The focus on the fetus (or blastocyst, or embryo) is the distortion here.

[Djinn]

172. so what

whether I sleep with a man or woman is an issue for some others, whether I sleep with ANYONE outside of marriage are issues for some - but they are NOT matters the government can legislate on.

It's not about whether the fetus is human or not (does anyone actually state it's a vegetable or mineral???) it's whether it has legal rights, and given it is IMPOSSIBLE to provide full legal rights to both the women and a fetus we pick the woman over the fetus.

[CTyankee]

5. So what is your solution?

If you are saying we Dems should therefore be infavor of criminalizing abortion, then we don't stop abortions we just make them dangerous or even deadly for women. How "pro-life" is that? I'm sure, Johnny, that your life wouldn't change much (unless someone you loved died or was maimed as a result of an illegal abortion)but a lot of women would not have the life options they have now without the right to choose. We'd also see lots more unwanted children. Dandy "pro-life" idea, as they grow up to be such happy, productive people.

Look, Mother Nature or God spontaneously aborts up to 40% of all pregnancies before a woman even knows she's pregnant. Not too "pro-life" there.

And, btw, those reasonable anti-choice people you know? We must be on different planets because the anti-choicers I know are also against contraception because they consider them to be abortifacients. USing spermicide in that condom? Yup, you're not "pro-life." Using Emergency Contraception to prevent a future abortion. Uh oh, that's abortion too because you've interrupted a fertilized egg on its way to implantation and that moment of fertilization, precarious as it may be for the 40%, is somehow sacred.

If people are truly pro-life they must be in favor of increasing women's access to EC and other forms of contraception, in favor of medically accurate sex ed, and be against the war in Iraq. I'm not experiencing that kind of thinking with anti-choicers.

If you are against abortion, please don't have one. The state does not force you to have one against your will. The state will, if abortion rights go down the tube, have the right to force you to bear a child against your will.

Then you won't have your problem.

[JohnnyCougar]

10. I'm not saying we should criminalize it

I'm just saying that we are doing a bad job framing it to look like we understand the sensitivity of the situation.

As far as the "anti-choicers" I know, they are of the younger, more moralistic variety. They are not against abortion because of religion, they are against it because they see it as a moral taboo. They are not the type to be against birth control.

There are alot more of these people my age than others think. "Anti-choice" people my age aren't that way because of religion. They just don't find it consistant with their views that all life is sacred.

[Dhalgren]

15. Say what?

""Anti-choice" people my age aren't that way because of religion. They just don't find it consistant with their views that all life is sacred." It's not because of religion, but because all life is sacred? Uh, how's that, now?

[JohnnyCougar]

24. Let me explain it in simpler terms.

I am 24. The people I meet that are anti-abortion are not religious at all. The don't go to church. They go to parties, smoke pot, dress in alternative fashions, etc... yet almost half of "anti-choicers" are not religious in the least bit. There is a younger crowd of "moralists" that oppose the concept of legal abortions. They are Democrats on every other issue, they think we should help the poor, they are against the war, etc... but they will never vote Democrat to save their lives because they disagree with abortion.

[iverglas]

70. so they're a bunch of spoiled brats ...

There is a younger crowd of "moralists" that oppose the concept of legal abortions. They are Democrats on every other issue, they think we should help the poor, they are against the war, etc... but they will never vote Democrat to save their lives because they disagree with abortion.

... who think that their "disagreement" with other people's fundamental rights should trump those rights in the policies advocated by the Democratic Party.

And you think the Democratic Party should cater to them.

How 'bout if they decide that they oppose racial integration in the public schools?

C'mon now, be sensitive. Some people really don't want their precious children mixing with those coloureds. You don't want to look like you're not being sensitive to them. You might lose the racist vote, and then where would you be?

Arrogance and self-absorption. Not something I plan to be getting real sensitive to, that's fer sure.

[JohnnyCougar]

84. Your response amplifies the problem.

Abortion from a moral standpoint is not like racism at all. Racism is clearly against freedom, justice and equality. Abortion is a grey area that can be looked at in many different ways.

To some, the fetus should be treated as a human being. That's understandable. I am only against anti-ablrtion laws because of my "government should stay out of others' business" beliefs. As an individual, I do find see the action as unhealthy. I would never want to legislate my views on what is healthy or not, however. That's why I am pro-choice.

But it bothers me as well as others when people say that a fetus should not even be considered as a part of this problem. All I am saying is that if we came off as more sensitive on this issue, many people would be less repulsed by the Democratic party. I am not advocating taking away choice. I am just trying to get a very obtuse clique of people to see things from another point of view.

[iverglas]

96. yours makes it real clear

Abortion from a moral standpoint is not like racism at all.

You're absolutely right -- and I didn't say it was.

I said that outlawing abortion is like outlawing attendance at public schools by people of colour.

Abortion isn't like racism.

Anti-choicism is like racism.

Anti-choicism is "clearly against freedom, justice and equality".

Clear now?


All I am saying is that if we came off as more sensitive on this issue, many people would be less repulsed by the Democratic party.

And all that a lot of people are saying is that if you came off as less of an arrogant self-absorbed uninformed woman-basher (hey, nobody's saying you are), you might come off as more of a d/Democrat.

I've spent many years, myself, being PROUD that I repulse vicious misogynists. I wouldn't want it any other way. And I just can't imagine why you would.


I am just trying to get a very obtuse clique of people to see things from another point of view.

Well you've obviously hit on the right strategy for doing that, eh?

[prolesunited]

7. You've obviously never been pregnant

"Having to have an abortion is hurtful psychologically for women. When a woman has a fetus inside of her kicking and rolling around, it is hard for her to think of it as "not a human."


One, don't you think that having a child that you are unable financially and/or emotionally to care for is "hurtful psychologically"? Could it not be as damaging — or moreso — to have the child under distress as it is to have an abortion.

Do you have any studies to back up your claim that abortion is hurtful psychologically. For many women, although there is some sadness or loss, the sense of relief FAR outweighs that.

And, on your second point, it's quite compelling emotionally, but has little basis in the facts. Quickening, or feeling the baby "kicking and rolling around" does NOT occur until the fourth or fifth month.
http://www.birthingnaturally.net/pregnant/concerns/quick.html

In addition,
88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

So the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed prior to any fetal movement taking place. Little babies are NOT being ripped from the womb kicking and screaming.

If an abortion is performed later in the pregnancy, it is often because fetal abnormalities or chromosomal defects have been detected. Should such *medical* procedures be outlawed, putting mothers' lives at risk or dooming someone to a life, however brief, full of pain and suffering?

And, since you're so concerned about women, you might want to know
Safety:  Legal abortion is a safe procedure. Infection rates are less than 1%, and fewer than 1 in 100,000 deaths occurs from first-trimester abortions. *Abortion is safer for the mother than carrying a pregnancy to term.*
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/38399-1.asp

And why is it that it takes two people to get pregnant, in the end it boils down to the WOMAN having to take on the consequences of *her* actions? When men can share the burden of carrying the fetus, I'll be glad to listen to this argument.

[JohnnyCougar]

16. I don't know any woman that would feel good about getting an abortion

But I am not anti-choice. I never said that illegal abortions are better. I wonder why you all of a sudden get so defensive without even reading my post.

I'm just saying that the way we frame this issue has more to do with the Republicans' success at using it as a wedge issue than the actual position itself. If you are going to support a woman's choice, you cant act as if you are completely unaware of the problems this choice can entail.

[Dookus]

20. I've known women

who felt good about getting an abortion. It was the best choice for them.

[JohnnyCougar]

30. Well, obviously some will, and some won't

All I am saying is we need to express more sensitivity to the issue. It really shouldn't be an issue at all, but now that Republicans have made it one, we have to deal with it in a more productive fashion.

It's time for us to suck up some pride and say that while women should have the option, we wish that it is a rare occurrence, and we sympathize with all parties involved, including the fetus.

[Dookus]

31. I disagree

I think playing along with the fetus fetish is a losing proposition. We should advance the idea that there is NOTHING shameful about abortion. It is a valid choice and we should stop tsk-tsking the subject with "oh, I know it's awful..."

It's not awful. It's a right, and there's no need to play along with the fake sanctimony of the right.

[JohnnyCougar]

38. But it's not just the right that have a problem with it.

While they are the ones with high profiles bitching about it, there are many independents that disapprove of the proceedure as well. All I ask is that we frame it in a more acceptable manner than "a fetus means nothing"

[Dookus]

45. I understand what you're asking

and I just disagree. I think buying into the whole silly notion that a fetus is somehow sacred won't buy us a damned thing. It will just encourage the anti-choicers to fight even harder.

I say turn the debate around entirely. Make THEM defend THEIR position. Have them tell us how they will enforce a ban on abortion.

[JohnnyCougar]

55. They're going to have to soon.

We should start asking them what their plans are now that they have control of the entire government.

[Dookus]

57. this is where Kerry missed a huge opportunity

when asked about abortion at the debate. Instead of his wishy-washy "abortion is bad, but must remain legal" waffling, he should've very specifically challenged the Republicans on what they plan to do.

Bush has said he does NOT favor overturning Roe. Kerry should've made a point of that. He should've pointed that the Republicans have absolutely no intention of actually doing anything serious about abortion because they need the issue as a political wedge. He should've decried the use of people's personal lives for political gain.

[JohnnyCougar]

67. This is something that Howard Dean would do.

I hope he does as DNC chair. I think both shoudl be done at the same time. We ask Republicans what they are doing to reduce abortions, and continue to say that reducong poverty reduces abortions. Meanwhile we can take the "we are not insensitive to the fetus" approach and state that we want to reduce the conditions that cause abortion.

"You can't pass a law to reduce poverty, and you can't pass a law to reduce abortion. But you can work to reduce the causes of both. The Democrats stand for both."

I can't see how a meme like that would not work.

[iverglas]

106. here's an example

"I think buying into the whole silly notion that a fetus is somehow sacred won't buy us a damned thing. It will just encourage the anti-choicers to fight even harder."

A few years ago, Naomi Wolff wrote her self-indulgent dishonest little screed about how all us girls should recognize that abortion is really a very not nice thing, and then, of course, demand the right to do it anyhow.

And where does it show up?

http://www.priestsforlife.org/prochoice/ourbodiesoursouls.htm

That's right. Priests for Life took her right to their ugly bosom.

Good strategy that was, eh?

Apparently, the anti-choice priests (and a particularly virulent and vicious lot they are) thought that it helped their cause. Who are we to question their judgment?

[chefgirl]

78. Personal vs. Political

The reality is that many Dems feel that abortion is "personally" shameful, (myself included, which is why I would never have one) but still believe strongly that it should remain legal for each individual woman to choose for herself.

I believe that these are the pro life Dems that have been making so much noise lately, and are the ones we must reach out to.
We must begin to frame the debate in terms of personal choice vs. political choice.

By definition, I am personally pro life, but politically pro choice.
It is possible to be both, and I think we need to do a better job of helping people to see the distinction.

-chef-

[JohnnyCougar]

112. This is EXACTLY the point I am trying to make!

And not about just Democrats, either. Many independents and young people won't vote Democrat because of this one issue.

[Djinn]

173. sympathise with a fetus all you like

but what does that MEAN at the end of the day, these are the options:

1. Outright banning of all abortions at any stage no matter what the circumstance

very few people actually want this - a few fundie nuts maybe but not enough to make policy on

2. Outright ban except in cases of rape/incest

so we "sympathise" with fetus' but not if they were fathered by a rapist - any other fetus has a "right" to live but rapists kiddies we "kill" with impunity. IT's one of the most stupid and illogical of the anti-choice brigades theories

3. Legal only up to a certain stage

it's OK to abort at 4 months but 4 months and 1 day is EVIL. Again illogical but also leaving you with the situation in which women will be FORCED TO GIVE BIRTH - no-one ever wants to put it that simply but if this were the law you would be forcing women beyond that point to have a child. If this is what you beleive say it loud and proud

4. Legal no restrictions and you accept that women probably know whats best for their bodies and lives

[prolesunited]

28. I did read your entire post

And I disagreed with it.

Then, I went on to post the manner in which a portion of your argument is inaccurate, with links proving my point. I'm not being defensive. I'm just pointing out the fallacies of your emotional appeal.

Just because you personally don't know any woman who would feel good about getting an abortion is hardly a logically constructed, factual argument.

Can you provide links to back up that assertion?

[iverglas]

82. you need to get out more

"I don't know any woman that would feel good about getting an abortion"

Me, I don't know any women who would feel really great about being pregnant when they don't want to be. But those who have, have felt a whole lot better about getting an abortion than about enduring a pregnancy, and having a child, they didn't want.

And I know a really whole lot of women who don't give a shit what you think about any of it.

If you are going to support a woman's choice, you cant act as if you are completely unaware of the problems this choice can entail.

Might I suggest that if *you* are going to support women having choice, you try doing so, and cut with the fairy tales about problems being entailed by their choices.

Some day, you too will be as old as some of us. And you might find yourself in need of the kind of surgery that old folks sometimes need. Things like, oh, triple by-passes. Choosing a triple by-pass can entail a lot of problems. Like, oh, death on the operating table.

Some of us might just be around then, and decide to entice some of the new crop of youngsters to make by-pass surgery a political issue, and insist that your party make a lot of sucky noise about how you're to blame for those blocked arteries, and maybe you should just suffer the consequences, but well, no, we'll let you go ahead and have the operation, but we'll make you listen to us yammering about how it's all your fault and you need to be sensitive to our distaste for your inability/unwillingness to just live right or accept the consequences if you didn't do that ...

Watch out. First you came for the pregnant women ... and you just never know who might be coming for the fat old white guys.

[JohnnyCougar]

85. You are still being defensive and missing the point.

I give up on you.

[iverglas]

103. whew, you give up on me

That's a relief.

Now if you'd just get yourself a new record and stop playing that "defensive" one ...

[Baconfoot]

128. To a third party observer, it seems you didn't read hers either. NT

[Dhalgren]

17. Well said!

[ComerPerro]

8. Republicans aren't pro-life, in any sense of the word

if they are so pro-life, why don't they give a shit about the fetus once it has been born?

The biggest reason they "fight for the rights of the unborn" is because its easy.

You don't have to do anything except say "I'm pro life" (and maybe murder a few doctors or bomb a few clinics) and you can walk around with the smug self-satisfaction that comes with invoking moral superiority.

Thats why they pretend to care.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. It's not about abortion. It's about sex and freedom.

The pro-preggers see unwanted pregnancy as punishment for women having sex for reasons other than having cute little Gerber's babies. That's why they are so adamantly against birth control and sex ed.

The idea that women should just avoid sex to avoid pregnancy is tantamout to saying that one shouldn't drive (or, ski, or fly, or walk) to avoid injury and denying treatment to anyone who has an accident.

To "frame" it differently, to sugar-coat it with obfuscations about being "pro-life and pro-choice" is saying that we believe in civil rights for everyone except women.

[prolesunited]

22. Actually, that's IS the point

We believe in civil rights for everyone except women <-- This is what they believe.

Abortion Has Always Been With Us
In 1955, the anthropologist George Devereux demonstrated that abortion has been practised in almost all human communities from the earliest times.1 The patterns of abortion use, in hundreds of societies around the world since before recorded history, have been strikingly similar. Women faced with unwanted pregnancies have turned to abortion, regardless of religious or legal sanction and often at considerable risk.2 Used to deal with upheavals in personal, family, and community life, abortion has been called “a fundamental aspect of human behaviour”.3

In primitive tribal societies, abortions were induced by using poisonous herbs, sharp sticks, or by sheer pressure on the abdomen until vaginal bleeding occurred. Abortion techniques are described in the oldest known medical texts.2 The ancient Chinese and Egyptians had their methods and recipes to cause abortion, and Greek and Roman civilizations considered abortion an integral part of maintaining a stable population. Ancient instruments, such as the ones found at Pompeii and Herculaneum, were much like modern surgical instruments. The Greeks and Romans also had various poisons administered in various ways, including through tampons.

Socrates,4 Plato and Aristotle2 were all known to suggest abortion. Even Hippocrates, who spoke against abortion because he feared injury to the woman, recommended it on occasion by prescribing violent exercises.2 Roman morality placed no social stigma on abortion.

Early Christians condemned abortion, but did not view the termination of a pregnancy to be an abortion before "ensoulment", the definition of when life began in the womb. Up to 400 AD., as the relatively few Christians were widely scattered geographically, the actual practice of abortion among Christians probably varied considerably and was influenced by regional customs and practices.5
http://www.cbctrust.com/abortion.html#2


Do you really think you're going to end abortion by making it illegal?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Confused about your response.

"Do you really think you're going to end abortion by making it illegal?"

I believe that we seem to be on the same side of the issue. I am firmly of the belief that a woman's right to abortion is a civil right without restriction.

I reread my post and see nothing there to indicate otherwise.

[prolesunited]

46. Sorry about that

I'm agreeing with you. That last comment was directed at the OP and those who agree with him.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. No problem.

Just wanted to let you know we're on the same side on this.

[JohnnyCougar]

43. It's not quite as simple as Karl Rove's "culture war" would suggest

It's not "us" versus "them."

THere are in-betweens here, who are against abortion, but are not necessarily agaist contraception, birth control, or condoms. Not every "anti-choicer" is religious or Republican.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. Yes it is.

Not every Republican was against slavery. Not every Democrat is against the war in Iraq. Sooooo....?

They're still wrong about it.

Women are more than a collection of reproductive organs. And, freedom entails the use of their bodies as they, not the government, not the church, not me, not you, see fit. Even if it means being "irresponsible" or not to someone else's liking.

Abortion should not be a political issue at all except in the sense of it being a medical procedure in need of health coverage through insurance or universal health care.

The very idea that women should be punished for being "irresponsible" by being forced to give birth smacks of slavery.

[Just Me]

12. I thought the Republicans were BIG on "NO GOVERNMENT INTRUSION"!

:shrug:

What I find ridiculous is that the radicals who have no more clue than the rest of us the pinpoint at which life begins have shoved this righteous crap down everyone's throats.

There is NO guarantee that ANY life will come into being. Hell, we can't even master the lives we have.

If LIFE is the issue, it's time to push caring for the LIFE we all can agree exist, here and now!!!

Maybe, it's time to do a pictoral of the abused and starving and homeless men, women and children who live in this nation whose lives are second to a life no one can predict will ever actually exist.

[Walt Starr]

14. The REAL problem with the abortion issue

MEN

Yep, men try toi describe what it feels like to be pregnant and issue their own fucked up fatwas about the issue.

The REAL probelm with the abortion issue is MEN!

[Dhalgren]

21. Absolutely right! Stop on!

[Hugin]

29. I need to have a uterus installed so I can have an opinion...

Is that what you're saying?

Legalize Male Abortion Now!

(Aside, I have my own nuanced opinions about the topic.)

(Note: This post is definitely flame bait.)

[Walt Starr]

33. YOU CANNOT DESCRIBE WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO BE PREGNANT

if you've never been pregnant. The original poster said When a woman has a fetus inside of her kicking and rolling around, it is hard for her to think of it as "not a human." which is just so much of a pile of bullshit if he's never been pregnant.

HE HAS NO IDEA WHAT IT "FEELS LIKE" TO BE PREGNANAT!

Also, the only right a man has in any pregnancy is to support the woman regardless of the decision made. IT ISN'T HIS BODY THAT IS THE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR THE FETUS, ERGO, HE HAS NO SAY IN THE MATTER!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. Yes...you do

[Hugin]

40. In my defense...

I am very supportive of a woman's right to choose.

My reasons have nothing to do with religion.

[MissB]

52. "Fucked-up fatwas"

Funniest snippet of this whole thread.

Thank you, Walt, for what you said and how you said it. :toast:

[Amaya]

86. If men got pregnant, abortions would be engraved into the Bill of Rights

[Lars39]

19. Sex = self indulgence?

Whatever happened to sex being one of the basic human urges,
like the need for food and water? And ending the life of a fetus ONLY
if meets such narrow criteria does not ensure the woman's right to privacy
nor does it ensure her right to pursuit of happiness,ie mental health.

The debate still boils down to who will have control of a woman's body.
I bet in some circles it's still being debated whether women
have souls.

[JohnnyCougar]

37. Yes. It is self indulgence to a lot of people.

You don't need to have sex like you need food and water. Do you really think you'd die if you abstained from sex?

I don't really care either way if people have sex 100 times a day, but if you take the risk, at least accept the consequences. If I accidentally produced a child, I would not want it aborted. I would take it and care for it if the mother had no interest in raising it.

[prolesunited]

44. BUT

Are you the one whose body is going to go through tremendous physical stress for nine months? Are you the one who is going to put your life at risk? Will you bear the stretch marks and scars that will never fade?

Will you be dealing with fluctuating hormones, painfully swollen breasts and a back that hurts so much that no position is comfortable for nine months? What about post-partum depression or psychosis, which has been much more extensively documented than the trauma of having an abortion.

Please do your potential mates a favor and be very upfront about your stance. Let her know before you have sex that if she gets pregnant, that you will not allow her to control her own body and her own destiny.

[JohnnyCougar]

51. Actually, I can't control someone else.

But if the woman can sacrifice 9 months of her time, I am willing to sacrifice 20 years of my time, and countless loads of my money to help the child grow up and be healthy.

[theorist]

49. "No interest in raising it"?

What if she is not financially or psychologically ready to carry the pregnancy to term? This is the civil rights question; you have no right to force her to have the child, regardless of how much of your genetic material she accepted into her body.

I know that you're posting to get this kind of attention, so I'll unload. What the poster claimed was that having sex is a biological imperative. If you are a post-adolescent male with testicals intact, I am sure you understand this concept. Relieving the tension that builds is necessary for healthy psychological function, and abstaining from sex for the sole reason of avoiding pregnancy does not work.

There must be some other, more important factor for abstinence to be maintained.

[Lars39]

50. What your mate decides to do is up to her.

I guess the consequence of sin is death. :eyes:

[JohnnyCougar]

68. What?

You are off your rocker if you think I am saying something even remotely close to that.

[Lars39]

74. But the decision wouldn't be up to you.

It is her choice to make.

[JohnnyCougar]

87. I'M NOT SAYING IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not advocating anti-abortion legislation here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! For the 100th time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All I am saying is that I personally am turned off by the proceedure. I DON'T think the government should be able to regulate the womb of women, but it turns me off when other Democrats act like a fetus is just as disposable as a used condom!

It turns a lot of other potential Democrats off, too.

And really, for me personally, it's not a huge issue, but for others, it seems like it is the biggest.

[Lars39]

94. Yes you are....per your OP:

"If we are to end the life of a fetus, we must do so only if it improves the lives of others, such as in the instance of rape, threat to the mother's health, and incest."

[JohnnyCougar]

97. Where do I say that should be written into law?

[Lars39]

99. How else are you going to enforce it?

[JohnnyCougar]

104. You can't enforce it...that's the point.

Even if you make it illegal, that will not enforce it.

My only point was that our rhetoric is hurting us more than it is helping us. If we would stop talkng about fetuses as meaningless, we would be able to make more progress.

I guaruntee you that the majority of this country does not think the fetus should have no consideration at all.

[Lars39]

107. Funny, the majority of the country thinks Roe v Wade

should be upheld.

[JohnnyCougar]

109. Another example of the problem.

Roe vs. Wade states that women have the choice to decide whether they get an abortion or not.

It doesn't, however, trash the fetus and say it has no rights. It doesn't say that the fetus is "not human" or a "parasite" or stupid crap like that.

I am pro-choice, but when I comment that it would further the Democratic cause if we had some grace and civility about this issue, I get flamed. People don't even read what I post, they just flame away in their reactionary, defensive method.

[Lars39]

114. Perhaps people are defensive because

the opposition has OFFENSIVELY been trying to do away with a woman's right to choose.

From what I can gather, anyone that responds to you is being labelled reactionary and defensive.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[Lars39]

120. You do know that is considered a personal attack?

It is usually used when someone cannot further their argument.

[JohnnyCougar]

123. Personal attack? In that last post???

Where!?!?

[Lindacooks]

166. If you're personally turned off by the procedure,

then quit thinking about it!!

Just like Repukes who are so offended by gays: 'it's icky!' If they weren't so obsessed by gay sex, thinking about it all the time, they could actually have a life.

[WildClarySage]

81. No but I think if I never had sex because I don't want any more

children, my mental state would deteriorate until I was the sort of person who is bitter, cynical and lonely, the type who posts inflamitory stuff on the internet to get attention

That's the sort of person I'd be if I never got any.

[JohnnyCougar]

89. You sound pretty bitter, cynical and lonely right now.

And if you think I am posting things to get attention, you are wrong. I am trying to address this issue the way I adress it with others. I was raised in a conservative religious suburb, and I am trying to address issues here the way I address them with my peers.

I am not conservative by any means, but when I actually talk to these people and understand what their point of view is, THEY ACTUALLY LISTEN TO MINE. Instead of trying to battle with them, engage them in a meaningful conversation. Connect with them. You have more in common with them than you know. They WILL listen to you, unless you talk like a fetus is a useless piece of garbage.

[Lindacooks]

168. How exactly do you think that personalizing an embryo or blastocyst

is going to help Democrats?

That's what Repugs do - talk about the 'poor little baby ripped from her mother's womb'. That's inflammatory, and misses the point entirely - it's a PRIVACY ISSUE.

[Djinn]

174. the "consequences" chestnut

people DO accept the consequences of sex - they don't have a lot of choice - if you get pregnant you ARE pregnant whether you accept it or not.

you then either have a kid, put it up for fostering/adoption or you have an abortion those are the ONLY options and whichever one you choose you ARE accepting the consequences of your actions

[Mandate My Ass]

25. So having sex = taking drugs?

You want to save women from the unproven potential for psychological damage by forcing her to carry an unwanted pregnancy and all the risks, expense, fear and health issues that condition carries?

Do me a favor, darlin', worry about your own issues and let me worry about mine.

[JohnnyCougar]

34. Man, you people are so defensive.

I didn't say I wanted to save women from psychological damage. I am just stating that sex is a risky behavior, and with that comes the consequences. If you don't want to deal with the consequences, don't take the risk.

As for whose issues I'm worrying about, another Democrat for preident will never get elected unless we worry about why we lost.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[JohnnyCougar]

41. You're not getting it at all.

And furthermore, your inappropriate comments only make you look bad.

[Withywindle]

42. Bill Clinton was pro-choice and he did OK.

I'm not going to get into yet another thing about the 2004 campaign, but don't you think the radical pro-forced-birthers might come close to being balanced out by voters like me who have never voted for an anti-choice candidate (been voting since '88) and never, ever will? I'm not exactly a single-issue voter, but a moderate pro-choice social-liberal/fiscal-conservative Repub would definitely tempt me above and beyond an anti-choice Bible-banging Dem.

Anyway, it's clear you know nothing about pregnancy and abortion from an experiential point of view--you have anecdotes about your friends and relatives, and don't we all? I do have a number of friends and a cousin who have had abortions, and I don't know a single one who regrets it. Quite a few of them felt no sadness or mixed feelings either. Me, I think I might've had one of those 40%ers that got out of Dodge before I even noticed it. (Maybe "it" knew "it" wasn't welcome. Or maybe it's just, y'know, A CLUSTER OF CELLS WITH NO BRAIN AND THEREFORE NO CONSCIOUSNESS.)

My belief on the matter is this: how can any argument that a rapidly splitting mass of cells deserves "equal rights" with an already present-and-accounted-for actual human being--who is always female--NOT be an inherently misogynist argument?

[JohnnyCougar]

47. I'm not saying we give up the pro-choice position.

I'm just saying that by being smarter about the way we talk about it will increase our chances of winning. This one issue siphons off more votes from people that would be Democrats than any other issue, and nobody seems to want to deal with it. As soon as I propose a modest change in rhetoric, I get attacked and told to "get bent" because I suggest that some other people might not see things the way we do.

[Withywindle]

53. Oh, well, I agree with you there!

"Safe, legal, and rare!" Absolutely. Nobody *wants* to be in a position where they need an abortion: they're expensive and painful!

But we need to leave debates about sexuality morality and the human soul and all that out of policy positions altogether. And we need to not go down the slippery slope of trying to make policy decisions about who "needs" or "deserves" an abortion and who doesn't? Do you want to see women having to go to court to "prove" they were raped, when you know how rape victims are treated already? Do you want them to have to "prove" their birth control failed or that they "need" an abortion for some other reason?

No. It's up to the woman. Period. Her partner if he's involved and cares. Her doctor. Her god if she has one. That's it.

[no name no slogan]

80. Hope you never voted for Al Gore, then

...because up until his first presidential run in 1988 he was "pro-life". Same goes for other prominent Democrats like Dick Gephardt, Dennis Kucinich, and even Hubert H. Humphrey.

Abortion is a very sensitive and very personal issue that is solely the business of a woman and her doctor.

Labelling one side "pro-life" or "pro-choice" adds nothing to the debate, nor does the inflammatory rhetoric spouted by each side at their supposed "enemies".

I myself would be considered "pro-choice", I guess, because I believe in the status quo of the current laws. However, I do not dismiss the "pro-life" stance out of hand, or demonize its supporters as evil, just because we disagree on this issue.

The knee-jerk reactions by both sides in the debate do little (if anything) to encourage dialogue between them, and only cause each side to see their opponents as less than human.

If we truly want to keep abortion "safe, legal and rare", the demagoguery must STOP.

[Withywindle]

88. Well, he was pro-choice at the time.

You take what you can get. :)


I'm only saying what my true feelings on the matter are. I'm sorry they're not more "moderate" or whatever.

[prolesunited]

61. How's this?

I promise to never have sex











with you! :-)

[JohnnyCougar]

69. That suits me just fine.

[MissB]

48. "Having to have an abortion is hurtful psychologically for women"

You might want to rethink that line.

[JohnnyCougar]

54. And why is that?

Becaus I do know 2 women that had to get an abortion. It was better for them in the end, but it still left scars. The best solution is to avoid the circumstances that create it.

[MissB]

56. You've stated it as if it is a fact

When it is only your own personal experience (well, not even that, since you didn't personally experience the psychological trauma). There isn't any data that suggests that abortion is traumatic to women.

Your original statement is as invalid as me saying I know 4 women who have had abortions and they weren't bothered at all by it.

[prolesunited]

58. I asked him the same thing

further up the thread, but he couldn't link any studies showing that to be a fact.

Johnny, do you understand the difference between factual evidence and anecdotal conjecture?

[JohnnyCougar]

62. Me knowing women that are hurt by it is a fact.

I'm not going to look up studies for it now. It should be common sense that abortion is a difficult decision for some.

[MissB]

65. Nice to see you're down to "some"

Rather than "all" or "a good portion". Still, since you made the assertion, you should be prepared to back it up.

We ask for those sorts of things, because quite frankly you're perpetuating a myth. Both proles and I have been quite politely asking you to examine your assertion.

[JohnnyCougar]

59. Just because I say it is hurtful to women doesn't mean it is to all women

But to clarify, there are a good portion of women who would be bothered by getting an abortion. Women who would otherwise be Democrats.

[MissB]

63. I don't suppose you have statistics or even a few studies to back that up?

I mean, if you're going to make a claim like "there are a good portion of women who would be bothered by getting an abortion", at least be polite enough to back it up. :shrug:

And I find the last sentence a wee troubling. Your sentences, when taken together, seem to imply that a woman who isn't bothered by an abortion is definately a democrat, while a woman who would be bothered by an abortion might still be a democrat. Those sentences just read oh-so-wrong.

[JohnnyCougar]

71. Perhaps you should look at the one that is doing the reading.

:shrug:

[MissB]

95. No statistics or studies?

I'm still waiting for that link.

[JohnnyCougar]

98. I don't need statistics or studies.

I already know it is a problem. I have seen it with my own damn eyes.

[MissB]

101. As some of us have already pointed out, what you see with your eyes

is not factual evidence.

You're trying to take an experience in your life (even though it isn't yours, personally - it is apparently the experience of two women you know) and apply it to all women.

That isn't fact. That's called anecdotal conjecture. It is just as valid as me saying that I know 4 women who had abortions and didn't have any problems at all.

You're being challenged on an assertion that you made. I will make this polite suggestion once more - check into the assertion that you've made, or stop making it. In other words -quit buying the myth, unless you have something to back it up with.

[JohnnyCougar]

105. Where's your evidence?

Can you cite for me a study that says abortion has no long-lasting psychological drawbacks for women?

Quite frankly, my position makes more sense. Women naturally have emotional connections with their children. I'd like you to cite for me evidence that destroying part of themselves has no psychological ramifications.

[MissB]

111. I'm trying to be polite to you

And this post is an attempt to be polite. You can take it however you want.

You made the assertion. In a debate, the person who makes the assertion has the burden of proof. It is poor form indeed to ask the person who did not make the original assertion for proof.

I won't do your work for you. You made the assertion - back it up. A helpful hint -when you come up with those statistics and those studies, it certainly makes sense that you'll find two or three results: one, where a certain percentage of women are permanently affected by their choice, two, where a certain percentage of women are not permanently affected by their choice, and quite possible three, a neutral effect (woman did not notice an effect either way- though that result may be lumped in with number two).

I'm a woman and I've been pregnant twice. Your second paragraph reads like the opinion of a man who has never been pregnant and never will be pregnant.

[JohnnyCougar]

116. Here.

Although I see that you have already protected yourself with your "when you come up with those statistics and those studies, it certainly makes sense that you'll find two or three results" comments, I will post for you what I find on PsychINFO, the most comprehensive psychological article database in the world.

1. Dimensions of Women's Long-term Postabortion Experience. Rosama F. Hess; MCN: The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing; May-Jun 2004; 29(3); p. 193-198

Abstract: To explore and describe the long-term postabortion experience as lived by women, at least 5 years after a first-trimester-induced abortion. Methods: This phenomenological study used semistructured interviews and constant-comparison analysis. Stories of 17 women were recorded on audio tape, transcribed verbatim, coded, and analyzed. Results: Women who had induced abortions represented several ethnic groups, religions, and occupations, and were single, married, or divorced. The average number of years from abortion to interview was 18.9 (range 6-31 years). The age range at first abortion was 14 to 43, and at interview was 23 to 60 years of age. Five themes emerged within the women's stories: Making the Decision, Coping With the Memories, Gaining Perspective, Seeking Help, and Recognizing Its Worth. Most women who participated in this study were able to integrate the abortion experience into their lives, and had found meaning in the abortion experience. Clinical Implication: This study provides yet more reasons why nursing should encourage women to prevent unplanned pregnancies through fertility control. Women in this study described many life-changing experiences, both positive and negative, because of an abortion. Therefore, preabortion counseling should be sensitive and include information about possible long-term effects. Postabortion support should acknowledge spiritual issues, and include steps women can take to help heal themselves, such as grief counseling and mourning rituals when appropriate. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)

2. Generalized anxiety following unintended pregnancies resolved through childbirth and abortion: A cohort study of the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.
Jesse R. Cougle; David C. Reardon; Priscilla K. Coleman; Journal of Anxiety Disorders; 2005; 19(1); p. 137-142

Abstract: The psychological consequences of induced abortion are complex and subject to both considerable controversy and methodological criticisms. While many women report feelings of relief immediately after the procedure, others report feelings of anxiety, which they attribute to their abortions. The purpose of the present study was to examine risk of generalized anxiety following unintended pregnancies ending in abortion or childbirth using a large representative sample of American women. Among all women, those who aborted were found to have significantly higher rates of subsequent generalized anxiety when controlling for race and age at interview. Implications of the findings are discussed. In particular, findings highlight the clinical relevance of exploring reproductive history in therapeutic efforts to assist women seeking relief from anxiety. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved)

3. Psychological stress response after miscarriage and induced abortion.
Anette Kersting; Michaela Dorsch; Carmen Kreulich; Elke Baez; Psychosomatic Medicine; Sep-Oct 2004; 66(5); p. 795-796

Abstract: Comments on an article by Broen et al. (see record 2004-12586-015) in which they compared psychological trauma reactions of women who had had either a miscarriage or an induced abortion. The aim of the study was to compare the course of the psychological stress responses in a 2-year prospective follow-up study; to compare the intensity of feelings; to identify variables related to the psychological stress responses at 10 days and at 2 years. We wonder why the authors formed a new nonvalidated Mental Health scale rather than using a validated instrument such as the SKID Interview (2) for the purpose of a clinically relevant psychiatric diagnosis. The same applies to the assessment of feelings connected to the pregnancy termination. A review of the literature dealing with validated instruments for measuring grief shows that there is only little agreement on the core symptoms of grief, even in the scientific literature (3-5). Within the framework of a retrospective study, we interviewed 83 women 2 to 7 years after termination of pregnancy due to fetal malformation with respect to the degree of traumatic experience (IES-R) (7), grief (MTS, German validated version of the PGS) (8), and experienced mental stress (SCL-90) (9) to which they had been subject (10). The results indicate that miscarriage and termination of pregnancy may induce an intense psychological stress response. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved)

I am in graduate school for psychology right now at a "liberal" university. I will have my PhD in a few years. While this may not mean much to you, I clearly have a comprehensive understanding of the emotional bonds a woman has for her child, which is part of her body. If you want to say that I'm not a Democrat, of that I know nothing because I am a man, it is henceforth due to your sexist and prejudiced attitudes. Just because I am a man doesn't mean I cannot possibly understand a woman's position on things. You are in essence saying that I have no empathy. Can women ever understand a man's issues? I want you to ask yourself, who is really looking out for women here? Is is you, or is it me? Just because your 4 friends say they have no psychological drawbacks doesn't mean they don't, either. If people are having problems, they rarely admit to them.

These are the first three articles I came up with when I did a search using the opinion neutral term "abortion." The literature is out there, and it is common sense that abortions are traumatic experiences for women in general. Just because you know a few who say they haven't been affected doesn't mean that women as a whole aren't affected. Now the burden of proof is on you...good luck.

[MissB]

132. Good luck with your degree

I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken if you think your degree will give you "comprehensive understanding" of what all women feel about abortion or childbearing in general. Perhaps one day, when you are married (or not) and you are standing by your wife (or girlfriend) in the delivery room after the birth of your first child, you'll achieve some measure of understanding.

That isn't meant to be condescending. I do not believe that anyone's *degree* will lead them to some "complete understanding" of the complex relationship that a woman has with her child, or what her body goes through during pregnancy. It certainly isn't that I doubt you have empathy. It certainly isn't that I think you can't have a position on women's issues. It is that you lack the experience to understand that emotions that women feel about pregnancy, childbirth and childrearing. I'm sure I had all sorts of assumptions about those subjects before I became pregnant. I'm also sure that your understanding will change once you experience it through the eyes of your wife. You'll be the better for it, quite likely.

You are still suggesting that it is "common sense" that women are traumatized by abortion. That is an amazingly sexist comment - and you've repeated it throughout this thread. A few weeks ago, one of the well-known posters asked women what it felt like to experience sexism. I think it was an eye-opening thread for many men here at DU. It may be worth it to you to go back and read it. I think you might gain some insight into why exactly you are getting the negative response to your comments.

Now that you've produced the studies, do they support your assertion? That's part of the "backing up your assertion" part. I'm sure you've poured through the links that Iverglas so kindly presented to you before you made your conclusion. (And just so you're clear: this is a rhetorical question. I truly don't care whether you've read the research in the links that Iverglas has provided or your own links. I'm still in the "polite" mode of letting you know the generally accepted protocol of making outrageous assertions on message boards.)

[JohnnyCougar]

137. I don't think my degree alone gives me comprehensive understanding

But I have had classes on these issues. What gives me understanding is having close personal relationships with women in my life. Of course some women are affected differently than others by pregnancy, abortion, and childbearing issues as a whole. I feel empathy towards all women who are forced to bear the burden if an unwanted pregnancy occurs. It's a difficult choice no matter what decision you make.

Sex and condoms are fine with me, so is birth control. My point was that these methods are not foolproof. I have two family members that were a victim of an unwanted pregnancy. Both did not have an abortion, and only one kept the child. The one that kept the child is happy, and the one that gave the child up for adoption many times feels guilty.

I have two more friends that had an abortion. I am not as close to them, so I don't intimately know their feelings, but I guess I could say that their problems are greater than that of caring about an aborted fetus.

The only 100% foolproof solution is to not have sex unless you really love someone and can stand to raise a child with them. Otherwise you take a risk. If you can handle the consequences, then that's fine. If you can't, then the best advice is not to risk it. Stick to oral sex, or don't do anything at all. I'm not being a religious nut about this, I'm just being practical. The pain that comes from unwanted pregnancies can be totally avoided if you really don't want to deal with it.

I don't think abortion should be encouraged as a solution to the problem. It should be legal, but an absolute last resort. The majority of this country sees the fetus as at least a partial human being. Even though they think abortion should be legal, they still think it should be avoided. Just like me. The rhetoric on here, however, likens the fetus to something insignificant. Hoards of people earlier defended someone calling a fetus a "parasite." Many say it is not human at all. It is this tone that disgusts moderates who may have mixed feelings on the issue. It is the "us" versus "them" mentality that makes people think this way. This mentality was engineered by the Republicans to create a crisis out of the abortion issue. Anyone on here is playing into their hands when they verbally trash fetuses.

I'd like to see our party take a more moderate stance on abortion not legally, but rhetorically. Or at least become more tolerant of those "pro-life" Democrats. An unborn baby is life to the majority of this country. If we could come off as pro-life AND pro-choice, the Democratic party could have a perfect pro-life platform that would be palatable to alot more people. We could rename ourselves "the party of life" and call the Republicans the party of death. The Republicans support war, capital punishment, killing the environment, no consumer protection, no protection for the elderly, no cheap drugs to dying patients....

I want to take back the word "life" and make it part of the Democratic platform again. To do this, we must moderate our rhetoric on abortion, and express why we don't want it to happen. Abortion should be our wedge issue. Many people who are anti-abortion would accept a party that wanted to keep it legal if we were seen as trying to prevent it in the first place. Talk about a simple meme, then. You couldn't argue against it. Democrats support life, period. Republicans support death.

[youthere]

150. Hmmm...

I've been following this thread and trying to keep an open mind, but quite honestly I'm having difficulty finding you even remotely credible. You've made several assertions and haven't been able to provide credible supporting evidence and cite only your own "wisdom". And then when you are called on them you recant. The latest of these being:

"I clearly have a comprehensive understanding of the emotional bonds a woman has for her child"

"I don't think my degree alone gives me comprehensive understanding"

I have news. You have no comprehensive understanding of pregnancy, childbirth, or motherhood. You have conjecture. You have theory and enlightened supposition. It is impossible for you to have anything else, despite your education. I will never have a comprehensive understanding of what it feels like to get kicked in the testicles and you will never have comprehensive understanding of what a women feels.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

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

[youthere]

156. LMAO...

at your scholarly version of "nanner nanner boo boo"

Rather than personal attacks and trying to "impress" everyone here with your dubious academic credentials try making a logical reasonable sequential argument. Are you really telling us that you know what it is like to conceive, gestate, and give birth to a child? You know the progression of the physical manifestation of pregnancy and possible psychological affectation. You cannot have a "comprehensive" understanding until you have felt it yourself. Until then you have a theoretical understanding. Get a grip and grow up little man. Talk to me when you've spent some time in the real world, rather than from inside a classroom. If you don't like abortion fine, but don't come in here pretending to be pro-choice when you attack and insult everyone who disagrees with you about how "awful" it is and project your own ASSUMPTIONS on how "women must feel". How did you get to staking a claim to women's feelings from your OP?
So here's a little pat on the head and a "good boy" for the effort. You've been quite entertaining. Make sure you keep a copy of this thread so when you become a real adult you can look back and laugh at how condescending and elitist you have portrayed yourself. And now I must place you on ignore because that's what I do. I ignore ill mannered children.

[Djinn]

178. but how does that actuually work??

I see this over and over in these threads - the idea that it should be legal but "rare" or a "last ersort"

how on earth is that achievable - should women have to proove they weer raped? that they didn't know they were preggers earlier, or whatever other reasons you feel make it acceptable to have an abortion.

[iverglas]

117. here ya go

But just so you understand how these things work in the grown-up world:

YOU are the one making the claim.
YOU are the one with the onus of proof.
No one else has any duty to disprove what you are saying when you have not offered any evidentiary foundation for it at all.


From my good buddy REP, over in the reproductive rights forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=217&topic_id=962#997

I trust her to have verified its provenance; it is quoted a few other places on the net, but there is no "original" source for this particular article on line.

Abortion doesn't affect well-being, study says

New York Times (as printed in the San Jose Mercury 2/12/97)

Abortion does not trigger lasting emotional trauma in young women who are psychologically healthy before they become pregnant, an eight-year study of nearly 5,300 women has shown. Women who are in poor shape emotionally after an abortion are likely to have been feeling bad about their lives before terminating their pregnancies, the researchers said.

The findings, the researchers say, challenge the validity of laws that have been proposed in many states, and passed in several, mandating that women seeking abortions be informed of mental health risks.

The researchers, Dr. Nancy Felipe Russo, a psychologist at Arizona State University in Tempe, and Dr. Amy Dabul Marin, a psychologist at Phoenix College, examined the effects of race and religion on the well-being of 773 women who reported on sealed questionnaires that they had undergone abortions, and they compared the results with the emotional status of women who did not report abortions.

The women, initially 14 to 24 years old, completed questionnaires and were interviewed each year for eight years, starting in 1979. In 1980 and in 1987, the interview also included a standardized test that measures overall well-being, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

"Given the persistent assertion that abortion is associated with negative outcomes, the lack of any results in the context of such a large sample is noteworthy," the researchers wrote. The study took into account many factors that can influence a woman's emotional well-being, including education, employment, income, the presence of a spouse and the number of children.

Higher self-esteem was associated with being employed, having a higher income, having more years of education and bearing fewer children, but having had an abortion "did not make a difference," the researchers reported. And the women's religious affiliations and degree of involvement with religion did not have an independent effect on their long-term reaction to abortion. Rather, the women's psychological well-being before having abortions accounted for their mental state in the years after the abortion, the researchers said..

In considering the influence of race, the researchers again found that the women's level of self-esteem before having abortions was the strongest predictor of their well-being after an abortion.

"Although highly religious Catholic women were slightly more likely to exhibit post-abortion psychological distress than other women, this fact is explained by lower pre-existing self-esteem," the researchers wrote in the current issue of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

Overall, Catholic women who attended church one or more times a week, even those who had not had abortions, had generally lower self-esteem than other women, although within the normal range, so it was hardly surprising that they also had lower self-esteem after abortions, the researchers said in interviews.

Gail Quinn, executive director of anti-abortion activities for the United States Catholic Conference, said the findings belied the experience of post-abortion counselors. She said, "While many women express `relief' following an abortion, the relief is transitory." In the long term, the experience prompts "hurting people to seek the help of post-abortion healing services," she said.

The president of the National Right to Life Committee, Dr. Wanda Franz, who earned her doctorate in developmental psychology, challenged the researchers' conclusions. She said their assessment of self-esteem "does not measure if a woman is mentally healthy," adding, "This requires a specialist who performs certain tests, not a self-assessment of how the woman feels about herself."

Here's another report on the study (you can google for Nancy Felipe Russo abortion):
http://www.selfhelpmagazine.com/articles/women/abortion.html
and another:
http://www.nlsbibliography.org/qsource.php3?xxx=Professional+Psychology

Here's the source for the study report itself:
The Relationship of Abortion to Well-Being: Do Race and Religion Make a Difference? by Nancy Felipe Russo, Ph.D and Amy J. Dabul, Ph.D., in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 28, No. 1.

That there is a professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Just a tad different from your personal, alleged, limited experience.

There's always Planned Parenthood's rather exhaustive review of the evidence:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-010600-emoteff.xml
... but I'm sure they just lie.

Some more from the professionals:
http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_research5.asp
-- analysing both research that has not substantiated claims of adverse post-abortion reactions and "research" (good old David Reardon) by people making those claims. This appears to be Reardon's unpublished, unreviewed paper in question:
http://clinmed.netprints.org/cgi/content/full/2001030002v1

Read up now.

Or what the hell. Just keep on typing nonsense like Quite frankly, my position makes more sense. Women naturally have emotional connections with their children, even after your outrageous demand for evidence that refutes it has been presented.

[JohnnyCougar]

121. I hate to say this, but...

The president of the National Right to Life Committee, Dr. Wanda Franz, who earned her doctorate in developmental psychology, challenged the researchers' conclusions. She said their assessment of self-esteem "does not measure if a woman is mentally healthy," adding, "This requires a specialist who performs certain tests, not a self-assessment of how the woman feels about herself."

She is absolutely right. If I tried to pass this study for my Masters' Thesis, it would never get by. There is no measure of emotional trauma here. Thie dependent variables studied have nothing directly to do with the woman's psychological well being. Just because some PhD's publish a study doesn't mean it is well thought out.

Please refer to the literature in post 116.

[iverglas]

122. that's hilarious

In your famous post 116, you cite DAVID FUCKING REARDON, and you have the gall to criticize someone else's scholarship???

You're a gas.

[JohnnyCougar]

124. I don't give a shit who conducts the study.

As long as it is done properly, a scientific study introduces no personal bias.

While you are going on making ad hominem attacks, I am criticizing the methodology of the studies at hand. It just goes to show you who is really thinking rationally.

Besides, David Fucking Reardon is only one scinetist of about twelve I cited. I'm sure he has power over the other twelve and can mentally manipulate all the subjects and experimenters in all the studies I cited. :eyes:

[iverglas]

130. is that what passes for scholarship where you're at?

"I don't give a shit who conducts the study."

?

!

Here's the full text of the Reardon et al. article, by the way:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/324/7330/151?ijkey=e9622aa15133d3addf07a70883cc9f6ca14232e9&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Funding: Elliot Institute.

The Elliot Institute, c'est David Reardon. So yes, he does "have power" over anybody credited on reports of "research" done by that outfit.

(What seems to be an earlier version, that I referred to previously:
http://clinmed.netprints.org/cgi/content/full/2001030002v1
apparently couldn't get published in the form it was then in.)

How 'bout a little more of Reardon's scholarship, from the Elliot Institute?

http://www.afterabortion.info/PAR/V4/n23/INVLVMNT.htm

The Elliot Institute's Role in Uncovering the Mystery

by David C. Reardon, Ph.D.

On December 12, 1993, I read a report stating that John Bobbitt had pressured Lorena into undergoing an unwanted abortion. Given the substantial number of cases in our files where women and men reported the onset of domestic violence post-abortion, I did not find this news at all surprising. The fact that many women feel sexually mutilated by their abortions, however, seemed especially relevant.

On December 28, two weeks before the trial was to begin, I contacted a member of Lorena's defense team. I suggested that her abortion might be the key to understanding the psychological trauma underlying the mutilation. As a first step in investigating this hypothesis, I asked him to compare the date of the attack to the date of the abortion. The attorney immediately recognized that the attack had occurred almost three years to the day, after the abortion. In addition, he told me, Lorena had gone to see her doctor complaining of anxiety attacks and psychosomatic stomach cramps just a few days before the assault.

At his request, I sent additional background materials and an outline of my analysis, much of which has been incorporated into this issue of The Post-Abortion Review. Also, at his request, I arranged for one of the nation's leading experts on post-abortion trauma to examine Lorena. During the two weeks remaining before the trial, this therapist interviewed and counseled Lorena for twenty hours and provided an additional eighty hours of work in helping to prepare the defense. All of this was done with the understanding that the defense team would allow the PAS expert to testify at the trial. Unfortunately, this never happened. (See "Why the truth was buried.") The defense attorney subsequently told me, however, that this expert played an important role in helping to show the psychiatrists who did testify, for both the prosecution and defense, that Lorena was suffering from PTSD.

Wheee! Can we spell "twinkie"??

Based on the known facts, it is my professional opinion that Lorena's abortion lies at the root of the violence which occurred in the Bobbitt household. To support this analysis I have drawn upon the public record and typical patterns reported by post-abortion couples. I have not had access to any confidential disclosures which Lorena or John made to their therapists or attorneys.

How 'bout "agenda-driven drivel"?

Your

3. Psychological stress response after miscarriage and induced abortion.
Anette Kersting; Michaela Dorsch; Carmen Kreulich; Elke Baez; Psychosomatic Medicine; Sep-Oct 2004; 66(5); p. 795-796

(which I tracked down here:
http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/collection/female?page=2
when you failed to provide any standard internet citation)
is a letter to the editor, for pity's sake. If they're so smart, why didn't they get their study published, like the one they critiqued:
http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/2/265
(one of whose co-authors co-wrote the paper I initially cited) ... which, it turns out, has pretty much nothing to do with anything here:

CONCLUSION: The short-term emotional reactions to miscarriage appear to be larger and more powerful than those to induced abortion. In the long term, however, women who had induced abortion reported significantly more avoidance of thoughts and feelings related to the event than women who had a miscarriage.

I fail to see how a comparative ranking of women's feelings after spontaneous and induced abortion, no matter which came out on top, helps your case.

Nor can I imagine how the letter to the editor you cited, which referred to a study of women who had experienced termination of pregnancy due to fetal malformation" -- i.e. termination of wanted pregnancies -- supports your little thesis either.

If you expect to get a Ph.D. with scholarship like this, I can only bemoan the state of education in your country today.

[JohnnyCougar]

135. More ad hominem attacks.

Study number 2 was methodologically sound, at least much farther than the one you cited. I really don't care who participated in it, I could cite 10 other studies to back me up if I wanted to waste my time.

Study number 3 states in the conclusion that YOU posted that "In the long term, however, women who had induced abortion reported significantly more avoidance of thoughts and feelings related to the event than women who had a miscarriage."

And you think that that study has nothing to do with the topic at hand? Sorry I screwed up on the citation and cited a response instead of the original article. But the issue still has relevance.

I'm just curious, are you waiting for me to post 7 more studies on here? Will you have an excuse for all of them?

[iverglas]

113. perhaps you should look at what you wrote

But to clarify, there are a good portion of women who would be bothered by getting an abortion. Women who would otherwise be Democrats.

Did the Democratic Party suddenly adopt the policy, when we weren't looking, that women who don't want abortions should be compelled to have them??

If not, why would a woman who "would be bothered by getting an abortion" not be a Democrat?

I mean ... unless she ALSO wanted to stop other women from having abortions, eh?

[JohnnyCougar]

118. Read post 116.

You are purposefully misreading my posts to justify your opinions.

And tell me, why are you such an advocate for a proceedure that does harm to women?

[WildClarySage]

76. Yes, and those women shouldn't have them

and many women like them are ok with being opposed personally and not trying to legislate their opinions.

[iverglas]

66. first, finish high school

Jesus fucking christ. How can anybody write so many words so devoid of anything worth saying?

If you don't want to get pregnant, the only 100% sure way not to is to avoid having sex. Now, I understand that most people don't want to do this. But taking narcotics is also a risk. It is fun, it gives you a rush, but if you injure yourself or screw yourself over on narcotics, it is YOUR FAULT.

SO THE FUCK WHAT?

Have you heard someone lately trying to blame someone else for the fact that she is pregnant??

When I fell off my sister's driveway and broke my foot, it was MY FAULT for being such a negligent walker. Do you propose that I be PROHIBITED BY LAW from having my broken bone set?

If you don't want to get pregnant, just don't have sex. If you do, be willing to accept the consequences.

What fucking sense does this make? Have you heard a lot of women being "unwilling to accept" the FACT that they are pregnant?

They're pregnant. They know it. They accept it. That's exactly why some of them have abortions. Fuckin' duh.

Kinda like I accepted that my foot was broken. I'd have been a bleeding idiot not to, wouldn't I just?

Having to have an abortion is hurtful psychologically for women.

Yes, and you, little fella, will be the authority to tell us this.

Did ya want to tell us what year you obtained that Ph.D. in clinical psychology?

When a woman has a fetus inside of her kicking and rolling around, it is hard for her to think of it as "not a human."

Gosh, one would almost think you were a woman. Except that you aren't. And except that no woman would refer to a fetus at 11 weeks gestational age -- the point by which overwhelmingly most abortions are performed -- as "kicking and rolling around".

Do you make yourself weep for all the precious little feties when you say these things?

We are not acting like that when we say that the fetus is not a life. It most certainly is a life.

No it most certainly ain't -- any more than *I* am "a life".

I am A HUMAN BEING. And I HAVE a life. And it's mine, bub. Not yours. Get your own. You seem to be in need of one.

If we are to end the life of a fetus, we must do so only if it improves the lives of others, such as in the instance of rape, threat to the mother's health, and incest.

Golly gee -- it occurs to me that it might improve MY life, right this moment, if "we" were to end yours. Will that be okay with you now? I mean, it's your criterion I'm applying and all.

Oddly enough, women who have abortions have actually, in fact, decided that doing so WILL improve their lives.

So I guess now you can go back to whatever it is that annoying children get up to when they're not telling adult women what to do on the internet.

[Lars39]

72. excellent!

:toast:

[iverglas]

77. ta ;)

Sometimes enough is already enough, and then the juvenile icing on the fascist cake comes along and flings itself in your path ...

and you just gotta make a meal of it and squash it too. ;)

[Dhalgren]

151. iverglas, I think I love you...but i want to know for sure...

Wild thing!

[theorist]

79. The threadkiller of all threadkillers.

Thanks for taking the time to do this. Since I'm openly male on this board, I try to avoid getting involved in this debate unless I know I can contribute something more than just an opinion (or if I want my position to be challenged). Yes, there are people out there who want their perspective on this issue to evolve.

I've been thinking that we as DUers should start an ignore campaign on all abortion threads. It may be my imagination, but they contribute little to the overall focus of DU, and actually force us to expend useful emotional energy on it. (Stepping back quietly....)

[iverglas]

83. oh, I couldn't agree more!

I've been thinking that we as DUers should start an ignore campaign on all abortion threads.

Of course, the problem is that the issue does arise in concrete ways -- like bills in your Congress. And whenever something like that is presented for discussion, quite legitimately, the usual suspects come along and start telling us all what they think about abortion.

Maybe we could all just ignore everybody's opinion about abortion and stick to addressing the real issue, which is women's access to abortion and fascistic attempts to eliminate it.

I do try to! Just can't ever get the anti-choice brigade (and their apologists) to stick to the subject ...

[DS1]

142. Some threads need killing

Take that as a double-entrandre if you like, but this one is growing up to be a disaster ;-)

[JohnnyCougar]

144. This one's not turning out so bad...

BTW, it's ironic that you just kicked a thread that you wished was killed. ;)

I think debates like this are important and healthy. It softens up both sides, I think. The last thing we want is for this to turn into a rigid, "follow the leader" forum like the the Republican brownshirts are doing to their own party. Democrats are much more independent and strong-headed. We have to learn to get along even if we disagree on some issues. We still need to focus on a unified message, but to be independent thinkers and unify a message is tough. It involves personal give and take, and not just following what talk radio tells you to do and ignoring the rest.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

102. listen up, little boy

If my post goes bye-bye, yours will go with it, so let's just get it all straight first.

"You're not really making any valid points, you are just spewing brownshirtesqe hatred."

It is not an answer to anything to characterize what was said, and the person who said it, as something unpleasant -- UNLESS you present some basis for your characterization. Even then, you haven't answered what was said, but at least you've substantiated the characterization, for what that's worth.

You yourself provide all the basis that anyone would need for any characterization that anyone has offered of you and your thoughts. But I didn't simply characterize. I RESPONDED to what you said.

If you don't like what I said, tough shit, or that's nice, or whatever.

But if you wish to call what I said invalid, and call me names, you'd better have something to base your allegations and characterizations on.

And if you want anyone at all to pay any attention to you over the next few decades, you'd better grow yourself some social skills and some respect for other people.


"You are so obtuse. I thought Democrats had open minds."

I guess you thought wrong. My mind (I guess you've missed the numerous places where I explain that not being a USAmerican, I am not a Democrat) is very firmly closed to hatred, prejudice, self-interest, dishonesty and stupidity, and to all policy positions that arise out of them.


Talk to me when you have calmed down.

If you imagine that grown women like myself are ruffled by pipsqueak fellas like you, you're deluding yourself.

I am disgusted and nauseated, but very calm.

[JohnnyCougar]

108. "I am disgusted and nauseated, but very calm."

:eyes: That says it all.

[iverglas]

110. I thought you gave up on me

Please do. I'm sufficiently disgusted and nauseated at this point.

My emotional state, in any event, my sweet, is no more your business than the state of my uterus.

And your attempt to make my alleged emotional state an issue (how original! attempting to make a woman's alleged emotional state an issue in a discussion of public policy! why has no one thought of this before??) ... well, it kinda speaks for itself, doesn't it?

[double_helix]

158. "little boy" - ahh, you've revealed what this is really about.

To the emasculationists like yourself, a man is only good for providing sperm and money - nothing more.

As soon as you don't get your way, it's time to "strip him down" like a little boy.

And that folks, is why I can't be a Democrat. I respect women, but I also respect myself as a man.

All of the men will soon leave the Democratic Party. You know you have a problem when someone like me -a minority who grew up in NYC-- isn't a Democrat. Except for people like Clinton, the Dems are far too liberal/pro-emasculation on issues relating to family.

[Scout]

161. ROFLMAO!

oh my goddess! the feminazi emasculationists are driving all the men from the Democratic Party!!
:eyes:

[iverglas]

163. yeah, heh

And of course, the emasculationist moi couldn't even be a member of the Democratic Party if I wanted to.

Didya catch that "And that folks, is why I can't be a Democrat"?

I did. So did the folks I quoted it to. Bang bang.

If only the would-be human rights violators didn't have to come right out and deny being Democrats for that to happen ...


Edited ... that's "quoted it to", not "too". Tsk.

[Lindacooks]

165. Wow, you sure are threatened by strong women!

Typical Repuke attitude: oh no, women are standing up for themselves, therefore I must put them down! I know! I'll call them 'emasculators'! That'll stop it!! No woman wants to be cast as a 'ball buster'!!

And did you make up that word yourself? 'Emasculationists'??

LOL!!

[Scout]

160. Brava!

and thank you!

[WildClarySage]

73. You're right about one thing:

Dems have allowed others to frame the issue. Everything else you posted is bullshit.

Abortion is a civil rights issue pure and simple. Anything else is simply pandering to the "punish women who dare to..." way of thinking.

[JohnnyCougar]

91. Everything else I posted it the point of view of many Americans.

I hold these points of view, and I am still Pro-Choice. Others can be too. If you would stop being so defensive and combative, perhaps more people would listen to you.

[WildClarySage]

93. Gee, I usually get 'combative'

when someone is trying to take my right to control my own uterus away.

I bet you'd be combative if someone was trying to control your testicles.

[JohnnyCougar]

100. You are proving me right. You are defensive and out of touch with reality

I said that I am pro-choice 100 times already. Just because I disapprove of the proceedure doesn't mean I think is should be legislated.

If you calmed down and actually read what I was writing, you could see this.

[WildClarySage]

153. out of touch with reality

just because I disagree with you.

and combative, needing to calm down. Amazing that you could read all that into my posts.

I guess you're much more intuitive than I am because you can see all that about me in a few words but your insistance that you are being consistently pro-choice (100 times already!) I can't quite infer from your posts.

[Djinn]

179. I am perfectly calm

and you stated in your original post that:

If we are to end the life of a fetus, we must do so only if it improves the lives of others, such as in the instance of rape, threat to the mother's health, and incest

which in English can pretty much only be construed as - "abortion should only be legal in cases of rape, incest or a threat to the mothers life"

sorry but that ISN'T pro-choice, and it isn't logical - if it's wrong to abort it's wrong to abort the children of rapist also

[JohnnyCougar]

183. You're projecting

The word "illegal" never comes up. And never do I say those are the only reasons an abortion improve the lives of others.

[Djinn]

184. so what exactly did you mean by

If we are to end the life of a fetus, we must do so only if it improves the lives of others, such as in the instance of rape, threat to the mother's health, and incest

what does "must" refer to to? what does "only" refer to - and in terms of "improve the lives of others" - well hate to be snarky but D'UH!! all abortions performed now do exactly that, a woman who does not wish to give birth, has an abortion and her life is improved by dint of the fact she's not preggers anymore??

so basically we should only perform abortions when someone wants one....gee what a concept

:eyes:

[JohnnyCougar]

186. You're doing it again.

You're just not letting it click in your head. You are too narrow minded to see any color between black and white.

I'm sick of trying to explain this, and I don't have time anymore.

I'm requesting that this thread be locked, because no one is benefiting from a rational discussion anymore. They are just letting their emotionally laden reactions interfere with the logical thinking process.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

75. Something smells here

There have always been abortions, just as there have always been drug use, drinking, prostitution, and gambling. Done in secret when outlawed these behaviors are disease vectors and cash cows for the mafia, creating police corruption, corruption of courts, overcrowded prisons, and enormous amounts of human suffering and death.

When they are done in the open, they are what they are. Maybe not everyone's favorite thing, but monitored and contained.

A true democrat stands for legalization of all voluntary behavior of adults, because anything else is utterly irrational. A party that appeals to the coming generations, and not just to the old and feebleminded, will have a platform of across-the-board decriminilization of everything and the abandonment of all attempts to legislate morality.

As far as the fetus being "human" goes--I'm eating some beef right now that was probably more sentient than any aborted fetus, so I'm the wrong guy to ask.

[JohnnyCougar]

92. I am pro-choice, just so you know.

All I am saying is that a better framing of this issue would turn off less voters.

[New Earth]

129. anyone who can say a fetus is not a human

needs to look in the mirror and remember who they are and where they came from.

that is all i have to say right now.

[double_helix]

159. I would add that they're also ignoring science and logic. /eom

[greenohio]

131. We need to embrace "Pro-Life" Dems.

I am adamantly pro-choice, but I realize there are differences of opinion on this in the party.

[SarahB]

133. dupe

[SarahB]

134. It should not be a legal matter. Period.

When you could be physically forced to have your body impregnated or to carry a pregnancy to term, you can have a say. Until then, leave it to the woman, her doctor, and her conscience.

[JohnnyCougar]

139. That's my position as well.

It is a matter of personal or religious opinion, and, of course, it should be kept seperate from the government. But I guaruntee the public opinion is not that fetuses are not human at all. Our rhetoric has to change to "pro-life" while keeping abortion legal for last resort purposes only.

[wadestock]

138. IT'S THE PERFECT NON-ISSUE DISTRACTION ISSUE

The abortion issue doesn't separate the parties.
It's a contrived wedge issue.

Facts:
Abortions were down under Clinton/Gore
They're up under Bush/Cheney

They don't give 2 shits about people...they care about business.
It's a good "business decision" to make abortion a wedge issue.

It allows a distraction amongst the public....arguing about non-issues that they can't think about what the REAL issues are.

The real issue is we're going to go bankrupt because of the war which will reach 1 Trillion dollars and 5000 dead by the time Bush leaves office.

Due to financial mismanagement the country will be forced to incrementally increase interest rates so that other countries and other investors will have any reason to invest in our rising irresponsible debt. The result is interest payments on the debt which will eclipse every other budget item by the time Bush leaves.

So go ahead and argue about abortion.
Meanwhile, as the freepers dumb the population down, there will be little attention given to our financial self-destruction.

Capitalism doesn't work without a RESPONSIBLE, empowered public behind it......

[Bucky Katt]

140. OH PUL-LEEEEEEZ

You said: "Having to have an abortion is hurtful psychologically for women. When a woman has a fetus inside of her kicking and rolling around, it is hard for her to think of it as "not a human." HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I AM A WOMAN, HOW DARE YOU SPEAK FOR ME? FYI, I had a abortion, and it was like a day at the spa. I went out to lunch afterwards at a waterfront restaurant to celebrate my relief. The "fetus" you refer to as "kicking and rolling around" was so microscopic it couldn't even be seen in the ultrasound. They couldn't even see it on the ultrasound at the clinic, they just sucked it all out on faith. It was just a speck. No I didn't think of it as human. The abortion overall was a positive experience, because I had eliminated the problem. Suck the damn thing out, so I can get on with my life.

"hurtful psychologically?" bwa ha ha ha! you are naive.

Yes, why don't we respect life, and not send young men and women to die for corporate interests? What about the rights of the born?

[JohnnyCougar]

141. According to medical research, some women are hurt psychologically.

But then again, you really don't care about those women, I guess.

Sorry to disagree with you on your first post here, though. I welcome you anyways. :toast:

[El Fuego]

143. delete

[Djinn]

180. and according to medical research

many women are psychologically (not to mention physically) hurt by childbirth - we should really restrict that too

[El Fuego]

145. I know that there are anti-abortion people who make it their occupation...

... to post on message boards like this. I used to see the same thing at about.com.

[JohnnyCougar]

149. Really?

What a bunch of losers.

[Nobody]

146. Are the anti-abortion people pro-choice? Yes. In many cases.

"If we are to end the life of a fetus, we must do so only if it improves the lives of others, such as in the instance of rape, threat to the mother's health, and incest."

And who decides if it meets the approval of the Abortion Approval Board (tm)? Who decides if it's rape when no woman would ever allow strangers into her police reports? Who decides whether a woman's life is in enough danger when she isn't about to let strangers nose through her medical records? Who gets sued if the Abortion Approval Board (tm) says no she can't abort, the percentage chance of death isn't high enough, and she dies anyway?

Whenever anti-abortion people claim to allow for exceptions IN ANY CASE WHATSOEVER, they're making a choice that abortion is OK. Maybe we need to mention this more often.

Ask the anti-abortion except in certain circumstance people this question: How are you qualified to decide for me whether or not I can abort? You're making a choice, so we've already stipulated that there is a choice here. Why are you qualified to choose when it's my body and my pregnancy?

[lukasahero]

157. This is an excellent frame of the issue!

These "pro-lifers" that scream about the "rights" of the fetus are really looking to control the life and rights of living breathing women - it's ok to disregard the "rights" of the fetus but only when "they" say it is. So, is it a life or isn't it? Who's "life" is more "important" or "valuable"? How do "they" make that decision and why should their decision be more valuable than the woman's and her doctor's?

[KG]

147. yes, the dems should become republicans on the abortion issue

they will immediately start winning elections like never before, and all will be right with the world! hooray! :eyes:

[JohnnyCougar]

148. Clearly, that's what I'm saying here.

Clearly. :eyes:

[El Fuego]

154. You fail to see how it is being fought as a LEGAL battle, in the courts

What you say is true, it's not pleasant to say say that a fetus isn't human. But it's really about a war of words, to try to overturn Roe v. Wade. The 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion is about the woman's right to privacy, but it also notes that if fetuses were "people," they would be entitled to protection under the 14th Amendment, and abortion would be illegal.

So abortion foes want to establish the fetus as a person with 14th Amendment rights, and the only way for the pro-choice side to fight this battle is to argue that it is not.

[Bridget Burke]

155. A on form, D on content...

Complete sentences, paragraphs, acquaintance with the rules of usage. Even used the spellcheck. Cool.

The content shows a severe lack of real-life experience. Most abortions occur before any movement is felt by the woman--although pressure from you on the anti-abortion front has made it harder to obtain a timely abortion for many.

Contraceptives fail, mistakes are made, men flee from responsibility. There are many reasons abortion are chosen. Sure, let's minimize the need. But let's avoid any further legal constraints.

Your preaching is not winning you any converts.

[double_helix]

162. If there were more Democrats like you, your party would be in better shape

I'm a conservative leaning independent, but I know many Dems who aren't thrilled with the idea of abortion on demand - they don't think of it as lightly as many here... they don't buy into the selfish attitude some women display here.

Democrats need to understand that minorities, men and married women are growing more and more weary of them. I'm a male and a minority, and most minorities I know are not liberals - never were. They are like Clinton - slightly conservative. They don't think like liberals think - even if they agree with some liberal policies. If Dems weren't seen as the party of civil rights, they would have much less of the minority vote than they currently do. Bush did better with minorities than most expected him to in '04.

Men are the bigger concern though: I believe only one in five men is a Democrat.

The Democrats need to wake up and realize that if they want to be a strong, respected, national party again - they have to care what regular voters think, and stop pandering to liberal activists.

You're correct: Republicans have to love this issue because it brings out the worst in the worst elements of the Democratic Party.

I advocate for "safe, legal and rare" even though I oppose abortion -and this compromise is still not good for most liberals.

I will be looking at the Republicans in '06 and '08 - especially if the Dems don't nominate someone from the Clinton wing of the party.

[Lindacooks]

169. So having control over your own body is 'selfish'??

That's quite possibly the most outrageous statement I've ever read.

How dare you label women who are asserting their bodily integrity of being 'selfish'??

And as far as voting and voters goes - 2000 and 2004 were both rigged; 2000 by the SCOTUS and 2004 by Diebold. Bush and the Repukes do not have a 'majority' by any means.

And if anyone is growing 'weary', it's Americans with logical reasoning skills who are sick to death of the way Bush* et al are running this country and world into the ground.

[Greybnk48]

170. The fetus is not human

As an Ethicist (ABD soon to be Ph.D.) who has taught Ethics at a University for 10 years now, I feel compelled to make a comment, although I have not waded through all of the responses for mental health reasons. If this is redundant--my apologies.

I teach/cover the abortion issue in my Intro to Philosophy classes, Biomedical Ethics, and Ethics classes. For those who have actually followed the debate in scholarly journals for the past 30 odd years, you already know that the pro-choice advocates dropped the mantra that "the fetus is not human" in the 1970's beginning with Judith Jarvis Thomson's writings on the issue (pre-Roe vs. Wade). John T. Noonan is who I credit with the argument that the fetus is human and therefore entitled to full rights because a fertilized egg has human DNA at conception (1971 I believe).

The problem with his argument is that this line of reasoning cannot be coherently applied. For example, cancer cells in a petri dish have human DNA, as does the gunk under my finger nails. Do we attribute rights to these things--the right not to be destroyed?

The other problem with the original argument is that it was based on probabilities. He argued that a fertilized egg has an 80% chance of developing into a full-fledged human, and that should give us pause. This argument is a variation of the "potential person" argument and is flawed on two levels, at least that I will mention here. First, new research has shown, astoundingly, that only 25 to 30% of fertilized eggs come to fruition--the rest are thrown off during menstruation (my source here includes the members of my dept. of Biological Sciences who I won't name). For anyone who thinks that all life is sacred and begins at conception then a sexually active woman's monthly period should be viewed as involuntary manslaughter. They should hold religious ceremonies for their tampons and pads, underwear and sheets and bury them in their backyards with little markers. This was not false reporting on Noonan's part, we have just learned more since he wrote.

My final point has to do with the tedious "potential person" argument, i.e., "a fertilized egg is a POTENTIAL person and therefore should be treated as a person--or afforded the rights of a live person." I just heard Mel Gibson presenting this argument saying that we all began as cell clusters!! OOPSY-DAISEY Mel, you forgot Adam and Eve (thank you John Stewart). What the "potential people" arguers leave out is that this door swings both ways. They argue that there's a 25-30% chance that a fertilized egg will be a live person and should be treated as a live person. What they ignore is that we are all potentially DEAD. And that's 100%!!! Should we treat each other as corpses?? (I believe this argument belongs to M. O. Little).

A final comment before I leave to go enlighten your children: The Pro-lifers say WE say the fetus in not human. Anyone who is educated in science would not say that--of course it's human. When I delivered each of my three kids I did not expect a kangaroo or a frog! The fetus, however, is not a PERSON in a meaningful sense. If the conservatives win this argument what will follow is a ban on DNR orders, a ban on pulling the plug on people with irreversible brain damage (PVS NOT Coma), a ban on IVF and some birth control, to name some of the blow-back that would result. They are deliberately hiding the fact that a reversal of R v. W would have far reaching implications for all of us--even those who oppose abortion.

"If men got pregnant there would be an abortion clinic in every Texaco station" Trumad

[catzies]

175. If there were more Democrats like both of you

I sure wouldn't be one.

[JohnnyCougar]

177. You people are pathetic

Because I say we should at least act like we respect the fetus, you don't want to be in a party with people like me?

People like you have no class or dignity. If you're so repulsed by the fact that I think a fetus shouldn't be treated like garbage, maybe you should start your own party.

[Djinn]

181. if YOU think abortion should only be legal

in cases of rape or threat to a woman's life maybe YOU need a new party.

I know you keep saying you'er pro-choice but according to your original post you are only pro-choice in the circumstances YOU agree with

[JohnnyCougar]

182. Reread my post and see where I said the government should regulate this.

And I just listed those as examples because they were the first that came to mind. There are other reasons as well.

[Djinn]

185. OK lets narrow it down

you said:

"If we are to end the life of a fetus, we must do so only if it improves the lives of others, such as in the instance of rape, threat to the mother's health, and incest"

which kinda implied that you wanted it to be illegal (otherwise that whole "must only" thing is a bit redundant) but I'll accept otherwise, but you know say there are other reasons in which it is acceptable so how about letting us know the circumstances in which it isn't.

Which women do you feel should not have abortions?

[JohnnyCougar]

187. To simplify it for your narrow mind,

I don't think there is any prescident or standartd that can be set. Decisions have to be made on a case by case basis. That's why the government should stay out of it. But I don't think it should be a proceedure that should be encouraged. I think prevention is the best route to take.

[fortyfeetunder]

167. Here is MY problem with abortion

We spend too goddamned much time worrying about a woman's reproductive decisions, and not a minute's more about the kids already born. We don't seem to value life after the babies are born.

First example, look at the budget cuts by the Chimp this time around. Most in the social and health welfare areas. These are for families, including kids.

Just this past weekend, a 20 month old boy was dropped off at a hospital in Whatcom County WA, severely beaten and unconscious. There were marks and scares on the body that proved the little boy tried to beat off his attacker, allegedly a 20YO male. The little guy had to be taken off life support, and he died.

I am just incensed about this because I know that kid didn't get half the attention as a pregnant woman debating how to make do with an accidental pregnancy.

I would not have an abortion, but I sure as hell don't impose my values on others. I recall Al Sharpton also said this during last year's campaign. That is what both the Democrats and the Republican Taliban need to understand.

[Raiden]

171. Abortion is a necessary evil

Here is an excerpt from an excellent (though very lenghty) site in defense of abortion rights....



Bodily Sovereignty
If the zygote/embryo/fetus is a person from the moment of fertilization, then we are dealing with two bodies of two persons: the body of the zygote/embryo/fetus and the body of the woman in which it resides throughout pregnancy. Presumably, then, both the woman and the fetus would each maintain a separate and equal right to the sovereignty and integrity of their own bodies. The zygote/embryo/fetus would have the right not to have its body invaded or infringed, and so would the woman!

So, we must consider where the infringement occurs. If the woman is the owner of her own body (as the zygote/embryo/fetus is of its tiny, embryonic body), then her rights to control that body and protect its integrity would certainly not be less than that of the zygote/embryo/fetus.

During the 1980s, there was a court case in Ohio. Two brothers had become estranged over the years. One of them was stricken with a kidney failure and required ongoing dialysis in order to survive until a donor match could be found. It was determined that his estranged brother was an excellent match, but the brother refused to offer one of his kidneys. The ailing brother sued the healthy brother in court, claiming that Mr. Healthy did not need two kidneys to live, and had no right to deny Mr. Sick -- a fully-endowed human person -- the "right to life." Needless to say, the courts held that Mr. Healthy had the right to control his own body and could not be forced to have his body used to keep Mr. Sick alive if he did not agree. It would be a beautiful CHOICE if he were to voluntarily offer the gift of life, but as a legal matter it could not be FORCED.

Similarly, even if the embryo is human, it still would not have the right to force the mother to use her body to keep it alive against her will. If the decision to give birth is what she wants, then "life" is a "beautiful choice." But it is her choice; she cannot legally be forced into it.

Likewise, if a person with a rare genetic type needs a blood transfusion or bone marrow transplant and finally finds that rare, perfect match, but the owner of the organs doesn't want to donate, no reasonable person would say that the one who wants the organ has the right to demand that a specific person donate his/her organ, even to save the life of an ACTUAL human. The day is fast approaching when everyone's DNA will be identifiable, and could be stored in data banks. Maybe someday men will start getting phone calls informing them that their DNA has been identified as a suitable match for someone who needs a kidney and wants one of theirs ... wants to FORCIBLY use their bodies to keep someone else alive, whether they agree or not. The day that men's bodies can be used to forcibly keep others alive, controversy over abortion will end. Organ donation is a beautiful choice, and I (voluntarily) carry my organ donation card with me at all times, but it is my CHOICE, just as pregnancy can be a beautiful CHOICE when it is voluntarily CHOSEN. But neither choice can rightly be forcibly coerced.





Read more http://www.wordwiz72.com/choice.html

[Lilith Velkor]

176. Good point.

What makes me nuts is that it doesn't have to be necessary. Our medical technology can figure out foolproof reversible sterilization and make it affordable, but our civilization needs to get over the hangover of several millenia of sexism to create a big enough public demand for it.