Abortion rights: stay polarized or compromise?
 

Interestingly, the general American public is nowhere near as polarized as the two parties on the abortion issue: a recent Gallup poll showed that 60% of Democrats support outlawing abortion in some cases, and 70% of Republicans support allowing it in some cases.

It seems that the country's ambivalence has started to show itself in behavior of the Democratic party. Last week the group Democrats for Life (an anti-abortion group) unveiled it's "95-10" legislation designed to reduce abortions by 95% in 10 years. Where did they stage the news conference? At the DNC headquarters.

A couple years ago it would have been unthinkable that an anti-abortion group could be supported by the DNC; now it seems the Democrats have been paying attention to the polls and are making an effort to "reach out" on moral values issues.

Hillary Clinton, for instance, recently told a group of abortion rights supporters that we should find "common ground ... with people on the other side," and said she respected "those who believe with all their hearts and conscience that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available."

And she's following up on this with action too: she's working on family planning legislation with Rhode Island Rep. Jim Langevin, an anti-abortion Democrat.

What do y'all think about this? Are the Dems wrong to be doing this? Do you find it repellent, or is there room for compromise on this issue?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...on-cover_x.htm

There is room to compromise on almost all issues.

I'm against abortion. I find it a disgunting and morally reprehensible practice. I do however think there are certain instances where it is justified, such as rape or health risk to the mother. I still even then don't really want to see it happen, but I can empathize with the women. However as I've stated before on the boards, in the grand scheme of all abortions these constitute the vast minority of abortions, I heard sources putting them as low as 1% of all total abortions. Going from there it sickens me that the institution and other 99% of abortions are carried by that figure. Then you get things like partial birth abortion, which I don't know how anyone can justify, yet the democrats fight tooth and nail because they feel a ban is somehow striking at their beloved roe v. wade.

To stop rambling though, I personally feel there is no room for compromise, the stakes are just too high.

The current situation (Roe v. Wade) is already a compromise. Any more compromise is just going to increase/decrease the exceptions to people who are allowed to have abortions. It's just going to be even more convoluted and arbitrary nonsense. This person can have an abortion, this person can't. Now these people can have an abortion, and these people can't. These people need permission, and these people don't. What a load of crap from both sides.

The only room for compromise that I see would be to ensure that fewer unwanted pregnancies occur. Sex education, easy access to birth control, etc could reduce the quantity of abortions.

I think that both sides could agree that the fewer abortions, the better.

From the Democratic view, the argument against compromising is that it allows Republicans to chip away at abortion rights little by little. The House for example just passed a bill that prohibits transporting minors across state lines to obtain an abortion without parental consent. This bill allows prosecution of anybody who assists in transporting the girl, including grandparents, adult siblings, even cab and bus drivers (the Democrats' immunity amendments were defeated).

Democrats who never would have voted for such a bill 5 years ago, voted for it this time: 54 Dems total voted in favor of it. Here's an example of a switcher: William Clay (D-Missouri) decided to vote for it this time because his constituents overwhelmingly supported it.

Other recent examples of chipping away at abortion rights:

--it is now a separate crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman;
--federal funds now are denied to any state or local agency that penalizes health care providers and insurers that don't provide or pay for abortions;
--Sam Brownback (R-Kans) has introduced the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, and NARAL-Pro Choice America is not opposed to it;
--in 2003, 16 Dems voted in favor of the partial-birth abortion ban, even though the ban failed to consider the health of the mother (this is the reason it was ruled unconstitutional).

It seems to me that this country is becoming gradually more conservative on the abortion rights issue. Republicans seem completely unwilling to compromise, and seem to have the strategy of chipping away little by little, with bills that gradually increase fetal rights. The idea I think is to create a new social climate that will be ripe for overturning Roe v. Wade next time it comes before the new Supreme Court.

And the argument in favor of compromising: Dems are up against the wall. Compromise at least keeps them in the game.

There can be no compromise here. We are talking about a woman's right (MY right) to control her own body and what happens inside it. Once people start legislating that, women become the equivalent of storage and production facilities.

You cannot tell me what I may do with my own body. I think we can all agree that abortion is not a "happy" thing, but it is and always should be an option for women who either cannot, should not or do not want to carry a pregnancy to term.

I really can't believe that this is an issue. Nobody here has any business telling an individual person what she can and can't do to her own body. I am not an incubator and I will not be treated as such. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the issue, but that is where your rights end.

Sorry for the rant, this subject infuriates me.

My rights go as far as my tax dollars go. Its definetly everyone's business if tax dollars are being used to carry them out. Plus many people consider it murder like I do. Why does Scott Peterson get a double murder charge, yet abortion isn't murder. I really don't understand why Democrats are complaining. Abortion is rampant. I read in my local paper the other day that 500 out of every 1000 pregnancies in New York end in abortion. That's insane. You people want more abortions? Why not adopt, there are plenty of families waiting to adopt.

The left has definetly won on this issue. 3700 abortions a day, why are they even complaining. There is no comprimise, the pro-death crowd won and is still winning.http://www.christianliferesources.co...l?statsGeneral

Adoption? Ever open your eyes and see the hundreds of thousands of kids waiting for parents? Or are infant babies the only way to satisfy these people?

Women are not birthing vessels and we have a right to terminate a pregancy. If men can get Viagra and other erectile dysfunction medication covered by Medicare and Medicaid, you better damn well believe that women's reproductive rights should be covered too.

And with our cities and schools being squeezed to capacity, you still want to see an extra "3700" unwanted children born into this world?!?!

Your tax dollars and mine go to support far too many programs that we wouldn't support otherwise. Your tax dollars go towards affordable health care and if that means an inner city teen who doesn't want her pregnancy, so be it. You don't care how she has made it in the world so far, if she was housed and clothed and cared for, but when it comes to her uterus, you think you have a say??!

Can we start post-pregnancy aborting handicap people? They are nothing but an inconvience on society. They suck down resources for those of us that are "wanted", nothing but a burden to those who take care of them and to hard working tax payers who have to help support many of them.

That is another issue entirely.

The issue, as I see it, is when does life begin. Some see it a conception and other see it later than that...

I am firmly on the side of the right to choose BUT I would draw the line somewhere and after that line is crossed the only thing that should allow an abortion to proceed is the health and safety of the mother.

Charlatan,
I agree with you, ethically, that there should be a line, but legally, you cannot give an inch. First and foremost you must consider the rights of the woman. A fetus's rights cannot and should never trump the rights of the woman carrying it. It is unacceptable to treat women like second class citizens and "allowing" them rights when it pleases the public.

Since the answer to that question is so unequivocally arbitrary, let's look at all the options:

Life begins after the first breath.
Life begins after first exiting the womb.
Life begins after the embryo can survive outside the womb.
Life begins after X months.
Life begins after conception.
Life begins after ejaculation.
Life begins after physical contact with a partners sexual organs.
Life begins after flirtation with intent.
Life begins after physical attraction.
Life begins after thinking about sex.
Life begins after thinking about the opposite gender.
Life begins after thinking.

One thing is certain, however: life, if and when it may or may not exist, goes through a process within a woman's body. The woman is alive. The woman decides what happens to her life.

There is no compromise.

Nice OT flamebait

I like this idea. Goodbye, war in Iraq! Goodbye, big salaries for politicians. Goodbye, money for anything I don't like.

Yes, its unfortunate tax dollars are spent on some abortions, and yet we have no centralized health care system...but thats another thread. YOUR tax dollars go toward killing people every day, and don't you think otherwise......whether its a fetus in a trash can, children in Iraq, or a convicted murderer on death row.....we are paying for it.

"Female: I lean towards the Republican platform but feel there is room for compromise. - 0%

Female: I agree close to 100% with the Republican platform. - 0%"

pretty much as I figured. now who is it that gets abortions again?

What would be wrong with a unilateral "compromise"? Though I hate to use the word to describe the situation since I feel that both parties are starting from a point that is completely unreasonable.

I have a suggestion, but it involves pretty much throwing out all of the current guidelines and rights relating to abortion. It's a rough plan, but given the circumstances involving how my daughter came into this world I have put a lot of thought into this situation.

Abortion should be legal for everyone, across the board the woman should have the right to have an abortion, however a woman may not get an abortion before meeting with a both a state licensed therapist and an adoption councillor. Because of the presonal choice involved in the actions surrounding pregnancy federal funding would not be provided for women seeking repeated abortions.

This would allow the woman to maintain her right to choose what happens with her body, however it would alo allow for a secodary level of counselling and balance, for instance women that are having their 4th abortion in less than 12 months may need to be addressing other options of birth control, it's not healthy for the woman and if her insurance company is paying for the procedures it's not very effective for the rest of us either. Having seen the situation for adoption I know that there are countless families waiting for young children (my daughter was nearly one of them) thus the adoption councillor as part of the approval process that could advise the prospective mother on all of her choices and options.

Granted there would be a lot of fine tuning necessary to make something like this work, such as actually setting the guildlines for an appeal process if an abortion was denied, etc. Feel free to poke holes in this idea, but please if possible refrain from the rant of "it's my body and I can do what I want with it" as that is rather irresponsible given you DID do what you wanted with it, that's how you ended up pregnant and to an extent I am ProLife, that baby should have some rights (being a parent doesn't help my skew on this one) but I think ProLifers are going about their message completely wrong and in a lot of situations are completely irrational and unreasonable.

I don't disagree with you about viagra being covered by medicare.

But...

Women are not birthing vessels? Do you know anything about where babies come from? You can try to deny it, but women are biologically designed to carry babies.

i do not see where any compromise can even start to get traction at any level---the discourses are mutually exclusive. between the two, i am firmly in the camp that women should be able to control their own bodies. the other angle i understand logically but do not accept as determinate. so there we are.

I also see no room for compromise. Once a women has had several opportunities to make DECISIONS about her body and her life, and knows the potential consequences of her DECISIONS, and this DECISION now involves ANOTHER LIFE...her decision making opportunites have been exhausted. The unborn, unable to speak, wanted or unwanted LIFE created by her DECISIONS should reign supreme. PERIOD.

Rape (no decision arrived at) and the health of a women can be considered excpetions. Killing, murdering, terminating, or ABORTING the life you created after making a decision to engage in the activity which leads to this life is dispicable.

HOWEVER...I fully support a womens right to make terrible decisions, and reserve the right to pass judgement on women who do so.

I fully support public scorn and humiliation for women who abort children upon the alter of birth control, lack of self control, stupidity, selfishness, or personal expediency.

These women sicken me!

I fully sympathize with women who make a gut wrenching decision to save themselves or terminate the fruits of a decisionless rape.

These women sadden me.

It's the potential for life that is executed, extinguished, SNUFFED by some bitch who "just wanted to get laid" that really disturbs me.

How pathetic.

-bear

"Women are not birthing vessels? Do you know anything about where babies come from? You can try to deny it, but women are biologically designed to carry babies."

We are designed to, yes, but the fact of my biological design shall not infringe on my rights to control said design.

"HOWEVER...I fully support a womens right to make terrible decisions, and reserve the right to pass judgement on women who do so. I fully support public scorn and humiliation for women who abort children upon the alter of birth control, lack of self control, stupidity, selfishness, or personal expediency."

I'd love to hear how your subjective standards will be set for a population. And how your opinion on her uterus should matter at all since you had nothing to do with other aspects of her life which have had a part in creating her current situation.

Fact is, you may hate the idea of abortions, but:
1) this isn't your body/life we are talking about,
2) if you don't care about what circumstances got her IN to the predicament, shame on you for passing judgement now, and,
3) we should be caring about the people who are already ON this planet before you start shedding tears for those who will never know the difference.

@astrahl: Could not agree more.

I can understand people thinking abortion is murder, but they do not and should not have the power to decide what a woman can or cannot do.

I am here to inform you that you are mistaken. For example, it is my understanding that women are NOT ALLOWED to commit murder.

"They" do, and do so frequently, exercise power deciding what women can and can't do.

Welcome to reality.

-bear

Bear,
You know exactly what is meant. Taking it out of context doesn't help your side of the discussion.

The debate on abortion would not be a debate if the debate on whether or not an unborn child is alive and/or when that life begins. If the child could be proven to be alive at conception (which I believe he is), then abortion is murder without a doubt. If the child were proven to not be alive until later (specifically at birth), then abortion is not murder and is therefore the mother's choice.

I did notice that no females have voted to support the pro-life view.

Yes, the issue of abortion is entirely contingent on an objective knowledge of the beginning of life.

Since there is no objective knowledge of the beginning of life, we can't infringe on the rights of the objectively living woman.

It meant, I presume exactly what it said. You have advocated it yourself. No one can tell you what to do with your body....

You were wrong when you said it and the poster I quoted was wrong when she (i assume) said it.

We can and DO tell you what you can and can't do with YOUR body (and my body and everyones body) all of the time. Make no mistake about. You may not like, or wish it weren't so...but that changes nothing.

I have no cause, btw...none what so ever. I am but an observer with an opinion.

I will continue to advocate strongly for the right of women (and everyone...of all genders) to make stupid decisions, abortion usually being a stupid decision, and will reject any call to accept or normalize or coddle these women as reasonable, measured, productive, important, even significant members of society. Furthermore, I advocate the need for the pervuyors of stupid decisions to be held accountable in the court of public opinion.

Aborting a child IS ALMOST always a bad decision. A bad decision to rectify previous bad decisions. Those who make bad decisions can apologize, ask for forgiveness, and demonstate they have learned from their mistakes or not. I reserve the right to judge ANYONE for their behaviour. I will judge them HOW I see fit.


-bear

The issue is only so contingent by those who are in favor of or are pleased with the notion of abortion.

Another smoke and mirrors tactic. Much like reframing the issue from one of murdering an innocent potential for life to one of personal choice.

Oh and yes, we most certainly can "infringe" on the rights of objectively living women.


-bear

the right is not consistent on this question of "respect for life"

for example--you, bear:

if you oppose abortion but support the war in iraq, you do not care about life--you care about the republican party platform.

if you oppose abortion and also oppose the redistribution of wealth, then you are stuck on the fact of life but do not care about what kind of life--in which case, your position is simply a joke.

if you oppose abortion but support capital punishment, you want to play god maybe, but you are not motivated by anything like respect for the sanctity of life.

for all the problems i had with the guy, at least john paul 2 was consistent on these matters. american conservatives are not bothered, in the main, by matters like consistency.

but until american conservatives at least take the respect for life seriously enough to be consistent about it, i see no reason not to see in their position anything but opportunism wrapped in the steaming bonbon of sanctimoniousness.

Wrong.

If it were known that a fetus was not life, an abortion would be essentially the same as the removal of a tumor.

As it is unknown when life begins, you use your own personal and unprovable belief in an attempt to control other lives.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to personally have an abortion. But if you attempt to control other people based on what is essentially a fantasy, you have FAR overstepped your bounds.

If this then that?

WTF are you talking about?

Steaming bonbon of sanctimoniousness...?

Are you for real? Do you have anything constructive to add to this discussion except for your ludicrous diatribes about the right and it's inconsitencies, something frankly I have no idea how you lumped me into. You clearly know nothing about me.

At least this time you didn't mention anything about bushco or bushspeak and the existent ,only in your imagination, of the "right wing" media aperatus.

Do you even have position on Abortion? Or should we just assume that you fall in the "our history about it is illusionary since it was created by a radical disjointed, hard core christian right wing connspiracy aperachik, bush kills baby, I love abortion since the democratic party is my messiah and they tell me to think this way" camp? Hell you almost always do.

And for the record I have very little respect for life, since it is more often then not squandered, largely as a result of the pathetic enabling of the left. Take ABORTING your fucking baby, for example.

-bear

Wrong. Fantasy or reality, fact or fiction, lives are controlled....end of discussion. Your explanations concerning orgins and/or commencement of life is but a red hering. I still advocate freedom to make bad choices, and would support a constitutional amendment to that effect. However, our system permits the prevention of bad choice making through legislation. Your opinions of where life begins are irrelevant.

How much fun is this :) ?

-bear

I think everyone has a position on abortion. I wasn't really against it until I took Biology and learned about how a fetus is formed, what it's doing at different stages. I think the only way to "solve" this problem is to educate. How about instead of the government stating their position on what they think about abortion they do something about it? Sex ed was TERRIBLE in my school; "Don't do it but if you feel you have to use a condom." "But what if the condom breaks?" "You should've known better." The government needs to get out into communities with low cost conterceptives and provide funding for local organizations to give comprehensive sex education. You can argue till you're blue in the face as to whether abortion is right or wrong, the government needs to smarten up and start trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies before they happen. But that just makes too much sense, right.

Not the end of discussion - just the end of a useless statement.

Lives are controlled. I'm not stating they aren't.

I am stating that you are using a fantasy to justify your desire to control someone's life.

maybe it is this kind of stuff that convinced me you were on the right.
i dont know, call me a risk taker, a gambling kinda guy.

i think that your position is like that of the preacher who occaisionally rants away on the campus near where i live--he likes to get his little children to hold up huge color photos of aborted fetusses while dad, role model of intellectual integrity that he is, talks about how evil muslims are and that all students are going to hell. he also has an american flag. i, like everyone else i see who passes him, stop and watch him and maybe laugh a little and then spend some time marvelling at how this particular racist fool is able to wrap his hatred of everyone not like him so tighly up with his religion. and wonder what the source of his strange erotic obsession with huge color photos of fetuses really is. because obviously they are not part of anything like a coherent argument in favor of his position--any more than your posts are, bear. but he seems to have fun standing out there, with his kids marching in circles with the huge color photos held aloft--he gets really angry and he spits alot when he yells. he later encountered certain legal problems, but they were private matters to do with is personal life, and have nothing to do with his sad, pathetic mode of arguing for his opposition to abortion. at least i dont think they do.

but maybe you, like henry ford, do not think that the "real america" could be found on the campus of an urban university: maybe you, like henry ford, think that "real americans" are out there in some rural place--but henry ford also like to think that those same rural people shared his view of the international jewish conspiracy and published translations of the protocols of the elders of zion for their benefit. he got a nice medal from his pals in germany in 1938. but then the relationship soured because his pals in germany were not far enough to the right for him.

so maybe i was wrong to assume that you strayed as far to the left as the republicans.

as for the steaming bonbon--maybe think about it as a metaphor. it seems a good one.

I'm pleased you will refrain from further uttering useless statements. Thank you.

As far as "fantasy" is concerned, unfortunately repeatedly utter something is a fantasy does not make it so, and regardless, remains irrelevant to the discussion.

1. I have no desire to control anyone's life. Please stop saying it, as if, once again, doing so leaves you with the dillusion that it becomes so.

2. "Fantasy" is used to control lives all the time. Take sobriety check points for example. The Supreme Court used flawed and fantastical data to declare that the drunk driving epidemic was so pervasive that suspension of probable clause and other search and seizure restrictions was warranted on the alter of compelling governement interest in preventing this non-existent threat to society. Fantasy prevailed, control exerted. Reality stings.

Get used to it people. It is permitted to control peoples lives. We need to change our government, and enforce the rules WE enacted to keep them reigned in.

Our bodies CAN BE CONTROLLED. Make no mistake about it.

That is in itself beside the point.

We are talking about ABORTION, the taking of the fruits of your loins....or however you want to call it...A "tumor", I believe one possibility you offered.

It disgusts me the cavalier attitude with which it is done.

Have one...spare us all the fruit of your patheticness...but don't demand appeasement or acceptance for your weakness and poor decision making skills. You deserve derision, redicule and scorn. You need to LEARN.

-bear

Your a risk taker, a gambling kinda guy.

:thumbsup:

And this preacher fella..he intrigues me. He sounds rather stand up and passionate...perhaps a diamond in the rough.

:D

You'd more likely find me manning a pro-gun soap box then an anti-abortion one.

Let's all agree that an abortion is a terrible decision and usually the cleanup of other bad decisions.

Cool metaphor btw...for some reason whenever I see bonbons I immediately think of Peg Bundy.

But that's just me.

So you're now claiming to have proof of the beginning of life? That is the only means by which to deny your belief that a fetus is life is anything but a fantasy.
You've been arguing for it for many posts now. But if you prefer to think of yourself as one who doesn't seek to control other people, so be it. I can't force you to open your eyes to the obvious nature of your actions.
Essentially, you're now claiming that some set of figures was false, the Supreme Court unequivocally knew those figures were false but declared a judgement specifically based on the figures being true?

I don't believe you. I don't even think you believe it - rather, you're trying to equate a judgement of the Supreme Court with fantasy, where no fantasy existed even if misinformation may have. No. The fantasy you have that you are the arbiter of knowledge of the beginning of life is not even close to comparable.
roachboy nailed it.

As long as you think so. Not even the courtesy to define what exactly was nailed, huh?

Bonbon sanctimoniousness indeed.

I expected so much more then hyperbole and platitudes. You really are nothing more then repetion of false "facts" in the hopes that your audience will begin to believe you.

Best of luck in all future endeavors.

It's ashame you couldn't continue to discuss ABORTION...I enjoyed pointing out your folly. Tumor removal and all ;-)

-bear

As far as the abortion issue, of course there should be compromise. The only reason nothing is ever accomplished is because both sides refuse to compromise. Kind of like war. No compromise=no progress and/or alienation.

I don't feel any sort of compromise is in order. Why should the majority of the people compromise their reproductive rights to apease the religious belief of a minority? Only one side here seeks to take freedoms away.

I responded "Female: I agree close to 100% with the Democrat platform."

Firstly, I don't tend to consider the fetus a baby until third trimester. I don't agree with third trimester abortions, unless having the child will seriously harm the mother physically. After six months, you ought to have made your decision and gone to the clinic. I know it may seem trivial to place a "month of life" upon the fetus, but I do believe that there must be a time when the pregnant woman must take 100% responsibility for the child.

With this, I am not necissarily saying that the third trimester is when the fetus suddenly becomes a Person, but it seems like a good cut off date for abortions. (especially since third trimester abortions are also quite a bit more dangerous for the woman as well)

I disagree with the "potential" aguments, ie. "The fetus holds so much potential! What if you're aborting a nobel prize winner!" I got this one from a female anti-choice friend of mine. I reasoned with her (to no avail) that each time she menstrates, she's technically passing up potential. She has half of the beginnings of a Person! She, of course, didn't take this well.

I don't like the idea of abortions. I really don't, and I doubt most people do. But as a woman, I want the choice. I want to know that if I end up with an unwanted pregnancy, that I have the choice of getting rid of the fetus safely. I figure that seeing as the fetus is inside of my body, it is a part of me for those first nine months. I do with myself what I see best, and I believe each woman deserves this right.

Oh, and liquidlight, I don't know about where you are, but from what I've learned in my training for sex-ed counselling that all women who are going to have an abortion in Toronto go through a process to determine their psychological health and also to see if they are having the abortion for themselves or for someone else. These women are also counselled on methods of birth control, and are offered group and personal counselling after the abortion to make sure that they are getting through okay.

My main problem with current abortion laws is that they unfairly discriminate against men. A woman has all the power-she chooses if a man is tied down for the rest of his life with an unwanted child or if a child he would gladly raise gets killed. I think that men should have access to some sort of abortion where they can deny their paternity and not have any obligation. It would be irrevocable, but that would really help end the imbalance of power currently held over the fate of children. Otherwise, I have some religious objections to abortion and I also don't like the fact that it allows people not to have to deal with the concequences of their actions, but honestly anything that cuts down on the number of people in the world is OK by me. IF some woman wants to kill her kid, it doesn't affect me so I say go for it.

I just really wish that liberals would get away from the euphamisms and just be honest-they are pro-murder in some cases. They aren't pro-choice, they are anti-life. It's just that won't sell as many bumper stickers. It's not a choice issue, and if they really didn't have any problem with abortion they wouldn't frame the issue that way.

A woman has all the power because she is the one who has to deal with the permanent biological changes that come with pregnancy or abortion, not you.

And abortion doesn't allow "people" to deal with the consequences of their actions. NO, what you mean is that it doesn't allow <i>women</i> to deal with the consequences of their actions. How convenient that none of you are holding men to that high standard.

A man can go around impregnating women - he walks away, she has an abortion - everybody is okay with him - just a youthful transgression. A woman makes a mistake, FORCE her to carry the kid, it was HER mistake, put HER through the trauma and forever-life-changing event of pregnancy and birth. Make her accountable. What kind of sick bastard would want to force a 14 or 15 year old girl to carry a child just to teach her a lesson?!?

And I don't care what kind of education you have in reproductive biology, a concieved zygote is no more an autonomous human with rights that supercede its host than a sample of cheek cells from my mouth.

insofar as compromise on this is concerned, have a look at the pattern of posts above:

conservatives operate within their particular discursive frame..it seems that if they focus on the accusation "murder" shrieked early and often, the complexity of the question can be erased. because it works for them in that way. the agency of women, their control over their bodies, is not an issue for the right.

MURDER! MURDER! (words usually thrown about by folk who also support bush's colonial war--which is arguably illegal--across which every single death is arguably murder--no problem--not with murder as such)

these accuations are usually followed by my favorite move, which a friend refers to a "wave the fetus."

why?

because the opponents of abortion know that if they even acknowledge the other frame of reference, they loose. they cannot argue their case on across the question of the right of women to control what happens to thier bodies. the best they can do is that it "discriminates against men" which is of course absurd, as astrahl points out above more eloquently than i could.

this "discrimination against men" thing is itself yet another example of the reductio ad absurdium of arguments about discrimination that the right indulges in constantly--on questions of affirmative action (echoing petit bourgeois arguments against reconstruction, a great lineage) for example--the ridiculous legacy of the bakke decision. why this argument? because if they acknowledge the opposition, their frame of reference on this, they loose. same thing with the gay marriage question, which is obviously one of equal protection--but on these grounds, the right would loose, so it is for them a "moral" issue.

a sorry state of affairs.

What I would like to see is more emphasis on pregnancy prevention - education, access to birth control, etc. - and therefore fewer abortions. I don't think the Republicans can have it both ways - insisting on flawed "abstinence only" sex "education" that results in more pregnancies than other comprehensive education programs, and then turn around and demand that nobody can have an abortion. If they want to stick their head in the ideological sand and pretend that it'll work to just wish people wouldn't have unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancies because it's bad bad bad, fine; but at some point they are going to have to accept the reality of the situation and look for what works to accomplish their end goal - reducing the number of abortions - in the Real World (where you have to worry about silly little things like people's rights) and not in Jesus LaLa Land.

I don't buy that for a minute. The man is every bit as responsible for the child as the women is. You're the one who's not holding men to the high standard by saying they have no responsibility in the pregnancy or raising the child. You can't have it both ways, either they are responsible and have a say, or they do not. Maybe women should start looking for a man who wants to get married and raise a family instead of someone who's just looking for sex. I almost get the sense from your post that you hooked up with a dead beat and now have some kind of hatred for men period.

It takes two for the pregnancy to happen. Likewise, both parents have the duty to raise the child.

I think what she's saying is that men aren't biologically forced to carry a child to term. When it comes to creating a child a man just has to point his semen in the right direction. I can potentially knock up a couple of women in a single day and even though i'd be douche bag in doing so, more scorn would probably be put upon any woman who aborted one of my zygotes than myself. The people who want to criminalize abortion could care less if men are behaving responsibly in terms of procreation. If they gave a shit about it you could bet they'd be trying to find a way to criminalize absentee fatherhood. They aren't, they don't.

Maybe women should start looking for men who want to get married and raise a family, but not all of them have been blessed, as you obviously have, with relationships that never fail with people who never misrepresent themselves or change their minds. I find your perspective wholly unrealistic. People have premarital sex. Despite how you come across, you've probably had premarital sex. Sometimes you can be in a committed relationship, get pregnant, and still end up a single parent. Finding a man who wants to get married and have children can also be the same thing as finding a man who for whatever reason is completely incapable of being anything that resembles a good father. Don't call me a man hater either, because i am a man, and even if i did hate them it'd be beside the point.

rhetoric moderated.

I am here to tell you that my daughter was born in the second trimester, and I can assure that she was a "child" or "baby" at the time.

rhetoric moderated.

rhetoric moderated.

Here here...Lurkette, my old nemesis...you rock. And you rock hard.

-bear

When you get by all the anti-Christian, anti-conservative rhetoric I essentially agree with you. There should me more emphasis on pregnancy prevention, and educating people on ways of preventing pregnancy. But for the last 10 years (at least) I don't think that there has been any shortage of information about ways to prevent pregnancy.



That's because it's already criminal. Many people are prosecutued yearly for being deadbeat dads. Many local news stations (including two near where I live) have taken to showing photos and amounts owed for people who have been lax and have warrants for child support.

I'm not going to be foolish enough to think that people will stop having premarital sex. But there are many ways to have premarital sex and not get pregnant. People who have premarital sex and get pregnant are extremely stupid or grossly irresponsible.

I am saying that when a pregnancy occurs and the woman doesn't want it, it was implied earlier that she should go through with the pregnancy as a lesson about dealing with the consequences her actions. So the guy shells out some money, BIG-FRICKEN-DEAL! The WOMAN is the one who goes through nine months of having her body hijacked and then the <i>lovely</i> process of birth.

Those biological changes are permanent and are not minor. So the guy "learns his lesson" by paying some child support?!? I hardly call that a fair reckoning for the men who contribute to the problem.

I think you fail to take the biological toll of pregnancy into account when you are discussing you opinion on abortion and judgement. To be forced to carry a pregnancy to term is having somebody force their will on your body and THAT is the same imposition as rape.

My buttons get pushed when people think it is okay to punish a woman for her mistake by forcing her body into servitude while the man involved gets off (no pun intended) without any REAL consequences. Even if you could devise a punishment for the men involved, it wouldn't make the forced pregnancy any less vile and disgusting.

And, if you don't mind me saying, you don't appear to be very sharp in deducing my circumstances if that is why you think I have this opinion. I don't have a hatred for men, I've never experienced a so-called "dead-beat;" I think men are wonderful. That is why I married one.

Reproductive rights are very important to me because I am a woman, but I am first a human being. A human being with a brain and individual rights and it is arrogant of you to think that you should have any say about what I do to and with my body, ever. If I want to cut off my finger, you don't have a say; if I want to shave my head and drink abscinth, you don't have a say; if I want to abort a pregnancy, you don't have a say. You are welcome to an opinion, but that is where your rights stop. You cannot ethically impose a law that violates a person's individual rights to their own body.

You may want to go on and on about the sanctity of life and spout all the half-truths and propaganda the pro-birth yahoos push, but in considering this issue please understand that I have taken into account, not only my own personal opinion, but also the biology and ethics of abortion. I may be wrong. As a scientist I must admit to the possibility. And perhaps when the karma comes back to me, I may see that I WAS wrong. But until then, I would rather err on the side of the people already walking the planet than on the side of a "possible/potential, may-perhaps person."

You never really deal with the inequality present. You just repeatedly state what a woman goes through. If women can have a dodge, so should men, they are nearly as effected as women. If you don't think child support is a big deal, go ahead and take 33% of your gross paycheck, and just send it away for the next 18 years. That is a REAL concequence.

Me personally, I would gladly trade 9 months of a rapidly growing tumor and one or two days of being drugged out of my mind/in pain for 33% more earnings.


I don't think this was directed at me, but I will say that judging by the above posts you don't have much respect for fatherhood, or a man's contribution to the creation of a child.

If what you want to do to your body is against society's best intrests a law can certainly be passed that limits that action.

And you can go on spouting the euphamisms, lies, and propaganda of the pro-death nuts, but all it's doing is skirting the issue, and not addressing it.

Fatherhood is a beautiful thing, I'm sure, but when it comes to this issue, we are talking about the rights of a woman to be in control of her own body and that has nothing to do with fatherhood.

And the issue is...you think you should have a say about what I do with and to my own body, right?

Sure we can.

A woman normally has control over what happens to her body (excluding harming herself in certain situations, use of illicit drugs for example). But when there's another being relying on her for life support, it changes. A mountain climber shouldn't cut his rope to the climber below him on the basis that it's his rope, and a mother shouldn't cut life support on the basis that it's her body. (Not a great analogy, I know, but there is no good analogy for it.) It's an unfortunate fact in unwanted pregnancies - and especially in those unwanted pregnancies resulting from rape - that a human being is suddenly physically dependent on another human being. But once that unfortunate situation becomes reality, one shouldn't be able to remove that system of life support merely on the basis that "it's part of my body, my property, and I can do what I want with it, it's not relevant if someone's depending on it". Imagine if hospitals took that attitude with their artificial life support systems. No, that would never happen.

"Discriminates against men" is most certainly not the best we can come up with. You were either being ignorant or dishonest when you typed that.

For what it's worth, I've heard 100% pro-choicers agree with the "discriminates against men" argument and hold to the position that men should have both no say in an abortion and no obligation to pay child support. I'd take the complete opposite of that position, but the argument itself doesn't interest me much.

alansmithee and samcol:

As a woman, I agree with you. I believe that pregnancy is a joint endevour - you can't get pregnant without a male, and regardless of who acts as the portable incubator the baby is BOTH people. I am 6 months pregnant right now. Simply because I have what feels like an acrobat in my gut, should I have more rights over it's life? No. It is a 50-50 genetic split, and I believe that males should have a say in the child's life or death.

Yes, pregnancy is difficult, and birth is hell. The more I read about it, the more terrified I become of this August when I'll be giving birth. But that doesn't change the facts. This is as much my child and his, and simply because I have to endure 9 months of gestation doesn't negate his rights as a father. We had our conversation about abortion. We checked out the clinics, got the options when we had time. We decided to keep our child anyway. And yes, I still consider myself VERY pro-choice. Why? Because I had a choice, and every mother deserves to have that choice. Every father deserves the right to be involved in that choice if he wants to be as well.

I hate to say it, but regardless of even if abortions are made illegal again, they will still happen. Women will have their guts torn out by backalley "doctors", and some will die miserable deaths simply because other people chose to deny them propper medical care. You tell me, what's a greater strain on society - thousands of abandoned children, mutilated women, and families pushed to the psychological and financial breaking point because of an unplanned birth, or Planned Parenthood?

Yes, birth control and education are critical to the process. But guess what Planned Parenthood does? Just that. But they go a step further - they offer choice. There is no going back once you are pregnant if birth control and education are your only choices, and that's a disservice to the society that will have to absorb these unwanted children, or have to foot the medical bills of women in the hospital after botched back alley abortions.

I apologize to those I have offended - I know there is no way to discuss this issue without hurting someone, and for that, I am sorry.

~Liz

politically speaking, it doesn't do the right much good to push sex education and pregnancy prevention. i read an article (print, not web) that claimed the number of abortions rose starting about 2 years after bush took office and started his abstinence only education policies. now, there could be two reasons for that that i can think of...

1) economy went down the crapper... people who lost jobs or were making less money/unsure of their employment future chose to put off having the child in the uncertian financial times. rather than having a child they could not afford to raise they had the abortion.

2) lack of good sex ed -> higher teen pregnancy -> more abortions.

so if it was #2, it's the prefect scenario for the right. they've got higher abortion numbers to further push their abstinence only education and they can rail against abortion citing the higher numbers and the need to get make abortions illegal. both of these are things that the rights religous base highly support. it seems pretty win-win for them politically.

if the abstinence only education is causing the higher abortion rates, it's almost like an internal viscious circle.

/what do y'all think?