Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why not let women decide whether abortion remains legal or not?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
harlinnchi Donating Member (60 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 10:12 PM
Original message
Why not let women decide whether abortion remains legal or not?
I mean, if it isn't possible to do something reasonable, like tying abortion's legality to the most-accepted, earliest date of viability, then why not let those who might possibly become pregnant decide whether or not that pregnancy should be allowed to be terminated.?

I'm sure folks will argue that the date of viability will occur sooner and sooner, as medical advances occur, but still it is the date which most reasonably addresses the concerns of conservatives but maintains the choice that should be available to women, unless women themselves elect to forgo the option. It becomes much more difficult to defend a pro-choice frame of mind when viable, but still developing life is in the question. Being (thankfully -- I saw two of mine emerge!) unable to conceive, I do not feel very qualified to make the decision, though. I'd probably say that none should occur after viability except when the life of the mother is threatened.

All in all, I think women would best make the decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mcctatas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. That does seem like one rational option...
However, a large majority of the anti-choice crowd are fundies, er go...NOT rational. Just visit the FOF web site to see Dr. Dobson and Co.'s opionions on the role of women...these people will give in to nothing less than a theocracy. They are evil and must be stopped!:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. Nobody Has the Right to Take a Right Away!
Edited on Mon Jan-09-06 10:20 PM by stepnw1f
Unless one breaks the law. That's why they want it to be a law. So they can punish....

It's that woman's body, it is her right alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bliss_eternal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Right!
If they can criminalize abortion, they can legally punish women for seeking one, which also gets into other issues--such as punishing women for being sexual--whole other issue for another thread or day, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nobody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
17. It's aleady been proven
that there is no way to change a person's sexual orientation. Changing others from heterosexual to asexual is about as likely to succeed as changing people from homosexual to heterosexual. It doesn't work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bliss_eternal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. self delete--
Edited on Tue Jan-10-06 08:57 PM by bliss_eternal
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
3. why not tell a religious faction they can't dictate their beliefs on us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
5. All in all, I think women would best make the decision.
All in all, I think the individual pregnant woman would make the BEST decision for herself. Everyone else, male and female, can stay out of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harlinnchi Donating Member (60 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. That sounds good. I don't know how it would be done, but it sounds good.
I just don't think I should be in it. I'm not the decision-maker regarding the pregnancy decision of anyone except, to a small degree, my wife. We're pretty much done, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
6. I'm Personally Against Abortion, Except In Special Circumstances,
however I don't actively try and lobby for it to be banned because the way I see it, if there is a higher power it is for him to judge others for their decisions. I'll continue worrying about my own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nobody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #6
18. I respect that
You're deciding for yourself, not others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
7. Civil rights are not subject to referenda
jesus christ, are you nuts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPKrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
8. Come on now, how would that make the patriarchs feel?
(Sarcasm of course)

I think that this is the power argument that is a keystone in the feminist argument against banning abortion.

It is their body.

My feelings: Abortion should be rare, but legal.

Though I am personally against it, I would not want to ban it, period.

Besides what would the abortion docs eat if they banned it? :sarcasm: :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WePurrsevere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
9. How about... if you don't want to have an abortion don't have one?
Edited on Mon Jan-09-06 10:42 PM by WePurrsevere
The privacy rights of women and the right to choose whether to carry a zygote/embryo/fetus to term or not needs to remain safe, legal and protected.

Down the road, if at some point science figures out how to do a embryotic transplant to a male or another female or creates an artificial uterus that can carry to term an unwanted embryo/fetus so it can be adopted by a loving parent or two, I'll consider modifying my stance... but certain things remain "fixed" for me as a woman (who brought up two now adult daughters as a divorced mom) who believes strongly that it's my body... my choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harlinnchi Donating Member (60 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. That sounds like #5, with which I agreed.
I agree with you as well. I only meant that if decisions must be made, they should be made by those most directly affected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-09-06 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
10. This is a maaaaaaan's world ...
... but it wouldn't be nuthin'
nuthin'
without
a woman or girl
--- the Godfather of Soul, James Brown

I'd be fine with letting women decide, but isn't that what Rove already does?

Interesting footnote for those who read this ... did you know Sarah Weddington was using the name of her ex-husband, Ron Weddington, also an attorney? Just like Ann Richards was married to Dave Richards.

Just passing along some trivia.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tyedyeto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 12:19 AM
Response to Original message
13. For me, it's not just about abortion but about what is the gov't role
in your private life between you and your doctor. The insurance companies, with the blessings of gov't, are telling doctors how to practice medicine. For example: when a person should have an operation or which medicines should be prescribed. I have a brother who had a hole between his urethra and his colon and was pissing feces. His insurance company told the doctor it was an 'elective' surgery to repair the hole. Our gov't has allowed the insurance companies to rule all medical advice to patients including abortions. I am a strong pro-choic person. What happens between a doctor and patient is nobody's business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
14. It has been decided already. WTF should it be decided over
and over again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harlinchi Donating Member (954 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. That's true as well. If it must be decided again, however, it...
...should be decided by women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nobody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
16. This is why abortion is legal
You have the right idea. A woman herself is the best person able to choose between giving birth and aborting her own pregnancies.

Because it's legal, it's an option. Unfortunately there are a lot of people trying to make it damn near impossible, either by intimidating and terrorizing doctors out of offering abortions, putting all sorts of roadblocks in the way, intimidating and terrorizing women in front of clinics, and out and out lying. Breast cancer anyone?

The antis have two options:

1) Oppose all abortions for all reasons, which sends a message that the fetus is more important than the well-being of the woman, her partner, and the children she already has. No exceptions. Period.

2) Allow abortions only for reasons they approve of. Usually it's rape, incest, life of mother. But who decides if these reasons apply? How long does it take to make the decision? And what woman would allow complete strangers into her medical records and police reports so that complete strangers have information enough to make a highly personal decision they say she isn't qualified to make herself? And notice that this option isn't anti-abortion at all, it's pro-choice, but only if the woman isn't making that choice.

I know a lot of people who would never dream of having an abortion themselves. However, they're not about to make someone else's decisions for them. These are the ones who want the option to be there for others, even if they personally would never use it.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of antis who either oppose all abortions or are pro-my-reasons-only who also oppose contraception and complete, accurate education about how the reproduction system works and how to prevent unintended pregnancies. You would think that the most rabid of the antis would be in favor of preventing the need for abortion.

Keeping abortion legal and letting women make their own decisions is the best way to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stanwyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
19. Wingnut Neal Boortz used to make
this argument. Back when he considered himself a libertarian. Then his rightwing masters tightened his leash and taught him to sit up and beg at the foot of the wingnuts for ratings. His audience is old, white men who are bitter and angry.
Now. Forget all his libertarian talk from the past decades about abortion. He wouldn't even talk to men about abortion. He'd hang up on them. When you can get pregnant, call me back.
Then he sniffed their glove with the dollar bills and learned to heel.
Good dog.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orangepeel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
20. why not let EACH woman decide for herself?
My personal beliefs about abortion are relevant only to my own uterus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
21. Viable
Edited on Tue Jan-10-06 10:48 AM by blogslut
Main Entry: vi·a·ble
Pronunciation: 'vI-&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: French, from Middle French, from vie life, from Latin vita -- more at VITAL

1 : capable of living; especially : capable of surviving outside the mother's womb without artificial support <the normal human fetus is usually viable by the end of the seventh month>

Now mine was born three months premature but I bet dollars to donuts, four months is pushing the limits of viability.

*edit* Jesus I need coffee. I can't add or subtract anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 03rd 2024, 07:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC