Gallup Poll says majority of Americans identify as pro-life [Archive]

SydneyK

06-03-2009, 09:46 AM

I prefer "anti-abortion" or "pro-abortion" because they get rid of a great deal of the posturing and get right to the heart of the discussion. (And spare me the "I want abortion to be legal but I'm not pro-abortion " statements- when the discussion is whether or not abortion should be legal, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you support the legality of abortion, you are pro. If you don't, you are anti.)

I think this is oversimplifying things. If Ann thinks a woman should have a right to choose abortion, that doesn't mean that Ann is pro-abortion. It could just mean that Ann thinks the government shouldn't get to decide what she does or doesn't do with her body. If you're looking for different terms for the debate, perhaps anti-abortion vs. anti-government would be more appropriate (solely in regards to the abortion debate).

I just think there are two very different arguments in play. There's the moral debate and there's the political debate. I think it's fair to say that some people who are pro-choice have that opinion because of the political/governmental concerns involved. Some of those same people might be pro-life from a moral perspective (meaning that if they were ever the one making the choice, they would always choose life).

/end soapbox

MysticCat

06-03-2009, 10:05 AM

Personally, I think the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" tags aren't the most accurate way to tag either side.
I agree.

(Which is why I didn't vote in the poll. ;))

I prefer "anti-abortion" or "pro-abortion" because they get rid of a great deal of the posturing and get right to the heart of the discussion. (And spare me the "I want abortion to be legal but I'm not pro-abortion " statements- when the discussion is whether or not abortion should be legal, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you support the legality of abortion, you are pro. If you don't, you are anti.)No, no, no, no, no, NO! Sorry, but I won't spare you. :p

It's pretty simple: pro-anything means that in favor of that thing -- that you think that thing is good in and of itself.

Are you pro-cigarettes or anti-cigarettes? If you think that cigarettes are disgusting and dangerous -- deadly even -- but you still think they should be legal and that people can choose for themselves, then are you going to describe yourself as "pro-cigarettes"? Probably not, since it is not cigarettes themselves that you are in favor of.

As Sydney says, it possible for someone to be anti-abortion (morally, ethically or religiously) and pro-choice (politically -- believing that the government should have a limited voice in the question). I know plenty of people who fit that description.

SWTXBelle

06-03-2009, 10:05 AM

That's just it - I am addressing the legal question (that's why it is in News & Politics). You can get distracted in all kinds of philosophical or moral debates, but the question at hand is geared towards the political. Of course, there is a moral issue, just as there is one when discussing murder. or marriage, or a variety of other subjects that have both a moral and legal aspect. Society enforces a certain morality through the laws they pass and enforce. I don't know that smoking is a good analogy - it certainly doesn't approach the moral import of a human life and whether that life should continue or not. I think most anti-smoking legislation has been approached through the idea that the rights of non-smokers should not be enfringed upon by smokers. Different animal, I think. The closest you get with the abortion debate is juggling the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the unborn - and then you get into the slippery slope of when does a fetus become a baby (much less clear-cut now thanks to modern medical technology).

Either you support the legality of abortion, or you don't. You can be "pro" legislation (like, oh, abortion) and not necessarily want one yourself (think of all those men voting for it!) The whys and wherefores can cloud the issue - but what states and ultimately the federal courts have to decide is whether or not abortion should be legal, AND if it is legal, should there be restrictions or limits? Read the whole Gallup Poll report - it is very interesting. Many who support the idea of legal abortion do so with some reservations - in other words, they believe there should be some restrictions. I'm sorry if I did not clarify - it is the political identification that is being discussed, at least for the most part.

eta - and upon reflection, I'm curious. For those of you who say you are anti-abortion in the sense that you would never have one, or feel it is immoral, but say you are pro-legal abortion, what is the rationale? I would assume (although you can correct me if I'm wrong) that if you are anti-abortion on a moral or personal level it is because you believe a human life is being ended and you believe that is wrong. If that is indeed the case, why would you support the right for others to have an abortion? And do you think that right should be unlimited (abortion up to the time the baby's head crowns) or are there limits you think the government should impose?

I am quite sincere when I say that I can't understand having one morality concerning human life for yourself, but another for society as a whole. I come from a very "pro-choice" family that has marched for PP - I myself at one time identified as pro-choice, but once I saw gypsyboot's picture at 6 weeks, that was it. That little peanut was my daughter, and could be nothing else. I understand those who say that a fetus does not exist as a human being until ________ (fill in the blank - viability is popular; others have other yardsticks) and thus can be aborted until that time, but I don't understand those who say yes, it is a human life, but the mother has the right to decide whether it lives or dies.

Scrubadub

06-03-2009, 10:30 AM

I'd like to be pro-life or to think of myself as such, being raised Catholic. I hate the idea of abortion.

However, if I were pregnant, especially as a young woman with a future, I cannot say I wouldn't get one. It's horrible, because I wish I were pro-life, but in practice, I'm pro-choice.

MysticCat

06-03-2009, 10:48 AM

That's just it - I am addressing the legal question (that's why it is in News & Politics). You can get distracted in all kinds of philosophical or moral debates, but the question at hand is geared towards the political. . . . I'm sorry if I did not clarify - it is the political identification that is being discussed, at least for the most part.See, all your initial post (and your poll) asked was "are you pro-life or pro-choice." Nothing to indicate we're only talking about a legal question only. Even so, I don't think that the designation helps further any real discussion.

FWIW, my position is this:

I think abortion should be legal with few if any restrictions in essentially the first trimester, with more restrictions as pregnancy progresses, and that it should be illegal if there is any chance of viability.

I think abortion is never a "good" thing, and should be an option of last resort, but there are situations in which in may be a morally acceptable choice -- the lesser of evils.

I think that only the people involved can really make the decision, which is why I think that the government's interest is very limited until such time as the pregnancy has progressed to the point of potential viability.

I think, to quote the old saw, abortions should be safe, legal and rare, and that the best way to see fewer abortions is not to outlaw them (that will just lead to unsafe ones) but to do whatever can be done to avoid the need to consider them in the first place.

I think that, if anyone tries to describe this position as "pro-abortion," the discussion is over. ;)

Shellfish

06-03-2009, 10:50 AM

We might still want the choice for it to be available for medical reasons.

SWTXBelle

06-03-2009, 10:51 AM

I agree.

(Which is why I didn't vote in the poll. ;))

MC, you should have vote option #3!

BigRedBeta

06-03-2009, 10:56 AM

I prefer "anti-abortion" or "pro-abortion"

That reminds me of Boys' State when one guy referred to himself as pro-abortion, then made campaign speeches proclaiming 'abortions for EVERYONE including dudes'.

I'm pro-choice, but I don't think abortion is something that should be a frequent occurrence. In my ideal world, we'd give all the education we could, as well as tools like a multitude of birth control options, to prevent unwanted pregnancies. As a physician, the legality of abortion is important to me because women who want to terminate the pregnancy will, it's just a matter of whether they'll do it safely or not. Talk to any really old school OB/GYN (which of course their numbers are dwindling) who practiced or was trained in the pre - Roe v. Wade, and you'll hear horror stories of entire OB/GYN floors of inner city hospitals dedicated just to women with attempted abortions and the complications that arose from those attempts. Perforated uteri, punctured internal organs, sepsis, necrosis, death...bad bad stuff.

If anything, the pro-lifers, especially the ones that don't want sex ed in schools, are the ones who want their cake and to eat it too (and if they're anti-welfare, whoo, watch out). They want to make it so no one knows anything pregnancy, can't end it, and then is burdened with a child but can't receive help from the state. Talk about setting women up for failure with no way out...

MysticCat

06-03-2009, 11:01 AM

MC, you should have vote option #3!I thought about, but I don't think "neither" fits either. "Both" maybe, but not "neither."

It goes back to your earlier statement -- it's just too complicated an issue to encapsulate in "Would you identify yourself as pro-life: Yes, No, Neither yes nor no."

DrPhil

06-03-2009, 11:05 AM

Hence, the margin of error in surveys and polls.

ISUKappa

06-03-2009, 11:15 AM

texas*princess

06-03-2009, 11:23 AM

I think this is oversimplifying things. If Ann thinks a woman should have a right to choose abortion, that doesn't mean that Ann is pro-abortion. It could just mean that Ann thinks the government shouldn't get to decide what she does or doesn't do with her body. If you're looking for different terms for the debate, perhaps anti-abortion vs. anti-government would be more appropriate (solely in regards to the abortion debate).

I just think there are two very different arguments in play. There's the moral debate and there's the political debate. I think it's fair to say that some people who are pro-choice have that opinion because of the political/governmental concerns involved. Some of those same people might be pro-life from a moral perspective (meaning that if they were ever the one making the choice, they would always choose life).

/end soapbox

I think using pro-abortion and anti-abortion is just a gross oversimplification.

agzg

06-03-2009, 11:24 AM

I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. It's not my place to tell other people what to do with their bodies, and I firmly believe that before the viability of the fetus outside the mother's body, the fetus is more or less an extension of the mother's body and it's her right to decide what to do.

It's ok to call pro-life viewpoints anti-abortion I guess but "pro-abortion" for someone who is pro-choice insinuates that that person would like a free-for-all policy on abortion including late term abortions, encouraged abortions and unsafe practices which is just not true (for the bulk of us that are pro-choice).

For me with the point in my life that I'm at right now, should an unplanned pregnancy occur I would probably not get an abortion. However, I don't think it's right for the government to interfere in that (very private) decision.

FWIW, I do think it's odd that many conservatives want the government to more strongly regulate abortion or get rid of it all together, but there are so many aspects of their lives and finances where they want the government to GTFO, and liberals want the government to GTFO (somewhat) of abortion but are willing to allow the government to interfere in other aspects. That last sentence doesn't make much sense but I'm at a loss about how to put it.

SWTXBelle

06-03-2009, 11:35 AM

MC - the original Gallup poll asked whether the respondents would identify themselves as pro-life or pro-choice. Yes, there is a problem with the question. I tracked the original language because I was discussing that particular poll.

BigRedBeta, I am familiar with many programs here in Houston, supported by anti-abortion groups, which offer free medical care and other support for pregnant women facing an unwanted pregnancy. I am also a big supporter of the Edna Gladney Center, which even offers mothers -to -be the chance to finish high school or go to college. http://www.adoptionsbygladney.com/

I don't believe in the kind of blackmail my sister espouses - "Pay me to raise this child or I'll kill it" essentially. There is a choice that can be made by those who do not wish to raise or cannot support a child - adoption. Right to Life groups exist to make sure every pregnant woman is able to bring a child into this world. That doesn't mean there is a moral obligation to enable every pregnant woman to suddenly be able to raise that child - hence the emphasis on adoption. It's a right-to-life (for the child), not a right-to-lifestyle (for the mother). And I think it fair to say that most of those women considering abortion are doing so because they feel they CAN'T have a child - so it would seem the best solution for most (not all, of course) is to enable them to have the child with the least amount of disruption to their lives.

Let me interject here that I think most of us fall somewhere between the extremes of NO ABORTIONS EVER and NO LIMIT AT ALL ON ABORTIONS. That said, why do y'all think there has been the shift in self-identification seen in this poll?

MysticCat

06-03-2009, 11:49 AM

MC - the original Gallup poll asked whether the respondents would identify themselves as pro-life or pro-choice. Yes, there is a problem with the question. I tracked the original language because I was discussing that particular poll. Then I would have refused to answer Gallup, too. :D (Yes, I have been known to do that -- there was the one poor poll caller who kept repeating the "options" to me in a political poll, and I kept trying to tell her that none of the options fit my views, bit "none of the above" wasn't a choice. She finally said "okay, thanks," and hung up.)

As for why there has been a "shift" in self-identification in the poll, I usually want to see a number of polls before I'll say a shift is really occuring. But if I had to answer, it's because the terms offered for self-identification can mean different things to different people, making them less-than-useful for actually understanding what people think.

texas*princess

06-03-2009, 11:50 AM

SWTX, that still doesn't address your choice of "pro abortion" vs "anti abortion"...there are at least a few points being made on the way you termed "pro abortion"

I don't believe in the kind of blackmail my sister espouses - "Pay me to raise this child or I'll kill it" essentially.

Whaaaaa? Who ever said that? Not everyone choosing to have an abortion is wanting a hand out from the government or anyone else.

There is a choice that can be made by those who do not wish to raise or cannot support a child - adoption. Right to Life groups exist to make sure every pregnant woman is able to bring a child into this world. That doesn't mean there is a moral obligation to enable every pregnant woman to suddenly be able to raise that child - hence the emphasis on adoption. It's a right-to-life (for the child), not a right-to-lifestyle (for the mother). And I think it fair to say that most of those women considering abortion are doing so because they feel they CAN'T have a child - so it would seem the best solution for most (not all, of course) is to enable them to have the child with the least amount of disruption to their lives.

It's also medically possible right now to have an abortion, so why can't that be a choice too? Not everyone chose to get pregnant. What about those who were sexually abused and raped? Should they have to carry the child of some monster for 9 months because the government won't give them a choice on what to do w/ their bodies?

I don't know on average how many abortions are preformed every year or their reasons for doing it, but there are already a ton of kids in foster care waiting to be adopted - some that never ever get adopted and "age out" of the system. If the government randomly said 'OK ladies, you can either carry your baby to full term and keep it, or give it to the state and we'll hopefully find a place for it to live" could you imagine the strain on those systems?

Some people can't afford the healthcare they need for their baby during pregnancy either.

I just don't think it's right for the government to be able to pick what people can do or not do w/ their bodies. And if abortion is made illegal, they are still going to exist whether we want them to or not...people WILL find a way to get it done.... but they won't be able to be regulated by the government (i.e. how far in the term, and other abortion practices) and that can just make them unsafe.

DrPhil

06-03-2009, 11:54 AM

Did anyone watch Dr. Phil yesterday?

It was an excellent show about men's rights. It touched on what SWTX said about blackmail and other topics.

texas*princess

06-03-2009, 11:55 AM

I'm not a regular viewer of Dr. Phil... sorry :(

Can you elaborate a little bit?

MysticCat

06-03-2009, 11:57 AM

Did anyone watch Dr. Phil yesterday?Naw. You're the only Dr. Phil I pay attention to. :D

DrPhil

06-03-2009, 12:02 PM

I'm not a regular viewer of Dr. Phil... sorry :(

Can you elaborate a little bit?

"Forced to be a Father"

http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1150/

If you have time, see how much the site shows you from yesterday's show.

Naw. You're the only Dr. Phil I pay attention to. :D

That warms my heart. LOL. I wish I remembered why I chose this username.

ThetaPrincess24

06-03-2009, 12:24 PM

Personally, I think the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" tags aren't the most accurate way to tag either side. I prefer "anti-abortion" or "pro-abortion" because they get rid of a great deal of the posturing and get right to the heart of the discussion. (And spare me the "I want abortion to be legal but I'm not pro-abortion " statements- when the discussion is whether or not abortion should be legal, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you support the legality of abortion, you are pro. If you don't, you are anti.)

I agree with that!

ThetaPrincess24

06-03-2009, 01:01 PM

That reminds me of Boys' State when one guy referred to himself as pro-abortion, then made campaign speeches proclaiming 'abortions for EVERYONE including dudes'.

I'm pro-choice, but I don't think abortion is something that should be a frequent occurrence. In my ideal world, we'd give all the education we could, as well as tools like a multitude of birth control options, to prevent unwanted pregnancies. As a physician, the legality of abortion is important to me because women who want to terminate the pregnancy will, it's just a matter of whether they'll do it safely or not. Talk to any really old school OB/GYN (which of course their numbers are dwindling) who practiced or was trained in the pre - Roe v. Wade, and you'll hear horror stories of entire OB/GYN floors of inner city hospitals dedicated just to women with attempted abortions and the complications that arose from those attempts. Perforated uteri, punctured internal organs, sepsis, necrosis, death...bad bad stuff.

If anything, the pro-lifers, especially the ones that don't want sex ed in schools, are the ones who want their cake and to eat it too (and if they're anti-welfare, whoo, watch out). They want to make it so no one knows anything pregnancy, can't end it, and then is burdened with a child but can't receive help from the state. Talk about setting women up for failure with no way out...

I am one of many opinions. I am pro-life and anti-abortion. I recently changed my opinion on the death penalty. But in saying that, I am pro-sex education in schools though I'm on the fence as to how early it should start and what all it should include exactly. I am pro birth control--shots, pills, condoms, implants, IUD, sponge, foam, lubricants, and having "tubes tied" (the actual medical term for that slips my mind right now). I also believe with the exception of having tubes tied, the rest should be available to the public for free with no questions asked (this includes dispensers in school restrooms).

Abortion is currently legal in the US. I believe despite my preference, it will stay legal for quite a bit longer. So in the meantime,I am all for restrictions being in place: parental notification for minors wishing to have an abortion and be placed on any form of birth control that includes hormones and a medical procedure (such as implants & IUD), partial birth abortion bans, and women being counseled on all of their options fully in an unbiased way on all available options--keeping and raising the child, having and placing the child up for adoption, abortion, and the resources that are available. I work with this organization here http://www.assurancecare.org/. They provide a lot of free counseling, testing, abortion information, options for women and girls who are unsure. They dont perform abortions here, but will tell you where to go to get one should that be the choice made. Women who make the choice to abort shoudl also have access to free post-procedure counseling as well, should they begin to have feelings or regret and depression. It should not shun them or belittle them.

Regarding the welfare/government assistance debate. Sometimes this is necessary in order to help the mother/family get back on their feet. What I have a problem with are those who are on government assistance, know about how pregnancy is achieved, have access to freebie birth control methods, dont care, and continue having more children in order to get a bigger check from the government, and encourage their teen girls to continue the cycle and do the same. I encountered this scenario more times than I could count on a weekly basis in my last job. I wont continue to go on about this because I can write novels, but know atleast in my area the abuse of this system far outweighs those who are on it legitimately, and reform is needed.

PhoenixAzul

06-03-2009, 01:19 PM

parental notification for minors wishing to have an abortion and be placed on any form of birth control that includes hormones and a medical procedure (such as implants & IUD),

I think this would be counterproductive. I'm thinking back to how I was at 16, and even though my parents are great people and we have an open relationship, I would have been HORRIFIED to ask them, "Hey mom/dad, I really want pills so I can have sex with my boyfriend, but I need you to sign this paper and take time off of work to take me to the clinic so I can get them."

I'm completely there with you on the education and counseling front. That's great. But requiring women to obtain permission to make health care decisions is not going to prevent unwanted pregnancies. If anything, I think it would create more. ("I'm too embarassed/my parents have religious objections to birth control/my parents don't understand/my parent(s) are the ones sexually abusing me.....So I'll just go without birth control".)

SWTXBelle

06-03-2009, 01:24 PM

Whaaaaa? Who ever said that? Not everyone choosing to have an abortion is wanting a hand out from the government or anyone else.
No, but as BigRedBeta pointed out - there are many who think that if you do not support abortion you should pay to raise the child. The one does not logically follow from the other is my point - it is possible to believe that a child should not be aborted, but perhaps should be raised by someone other than the biological mother.

It's also medically possible right now to have an abortion, so why can't that be a choice too? Not everyone chose to get pregnant. What about those who were sexually abused and raped? Should they have to carry the child of some monster for 9 months because the government won't give them a choice on what to do w/ their bodies?

The question is not simply what the government will or will not allow you to do to "their" bodies - were there not another living being concerned, no one would care. Going back to MC's smoking analogy - you can legally smoke, but you cannot infringe on a non-smokers right to not smoke. So the mother can do whatever she likes with her body - the issue becomes more complicated when it becomes about what she wants to do with the body of her child. As to sexually abused and raped - I don't know that an innocent child should have to pay for the crime of his/her father. I don't think that one act of violence should beget another.
I don't know on average how many abortions are preformed every year or their reasons for doing it, but there are already a ton of kids in foster care waiting to be adopted - some that never ever get adopted and "age out" of the system. If the government randomly said 'OK ladies, you can either carry your baby to full term and keep it, or give it to the state and we'll hopefully find a place for it to live" could you imagine the strain on those systems? Most children in foster care did NOT enter the system as babies - the majority are older children who are in the system as a result of the state stepping in and taking them out of a bad situation.

Some people can't afford the healthcare they need for their baby during pregnancy either. There are groups whose sole focus is prenatal care for those who can't afford it - some of which I referenced above.

I just don't think it's right for the government to be able to pick what people can do or not do w/ their bodies. And if abortion is made illegal, they are still going to exist whether we want them to or not...people WILL find a way to get it done.... but they won't be able to be regulated by the government (i.e. how far in the term, and other abortion practices) and that can just make them unsafe.
By this line of reasoning, any illegal act which continues should simply be legalized and then the government can regulate it. There are all kinds of illegal activities that people continue to do - hmmm, probably all of them - but I don't know that people continuing to do an action is a good argument for legalizing it.

SWTXBelle

06-03-2009, 01:29 PM

. . . here would be my choices.

I believe abortion should be

1.) totally illegal.
2.) totally illegal except in cases of rape, incest, and endangering the life of the mother.
3.) totally illegal except when it endangers the life of the mother.
4.) totally legal though the first trimester.
5.) totally legal through the second trimester.
6.) totally legal, no exceptions.
7.) legal through the first trimester with some restrictions.
8.) legal through the second trimester with some restrictions.
9.) legal through the third trimester with some restrictions.

That would cover more of the subtle nuances alluded to, I think.

KSigkid

06-03-2009, 01:36 PM

FWIW, my position is this:

I think abortion should be legal with few if any restrictions in essentially the first trimester, with more restrictions as pregnancy progresses, and that it should be illegal if there is any chance of viability.

I think abortion is never a "good" thing, and should be an option of last resort, but there are situations in which in may be a morally acceptable choice -- the lesser of evils.

I think that only the people involved can really make the decision, which is why I think that the government's interest is very limited until such time as the pregnancy has progressed to the point of potential viability.

I think, to quote the old saw, abortions should be safe, legal and rare, and that the best way to see fewer abortions is not to outlaw them (that will just lead to unsafe ones) but to do whatever can be done to avoid the need to consider them in the first place.

I think that, if anyone tries to describe this position as "pro-abortion," the discussion is over. ;)

This is essentially my position, and agree heartily with each of these points. I would personally be very uncomfortable with a loved one having an abortion, but I don't think the State has an absolute right to ban them either. I think, in the end, it takes a weighing of interests (i.e. how close the fetus is to viability).

Also, for what it's worth, I hate most discussions about the abortion issue, and I don't think there's a chance in hell that Roe gets reversed (which, for me, means people spend far too much time basing their votes on it).

. . . here would be my choices.

I believe abortion should be

1.) totally illegal.
2.) totally illegal except in cases of rape, incest, and endangering the life of the mother.
3.) totally illegal except when it endangers the life of the mother.
4.) totally legal though the first trimester.
5.) totally legal through the second trimester.
6.) totally legal, no exceptions.
7.) legal through the first trimester with some restrictions.
8.) legal through the second trimester with some restrictions.
9.) legal through the third trimester with some restrictions.

That would cover more of the subtle nuances alluded to, I think.

But even that, which is more thorough, misses some of the issues. There are people who think it should be legal through the third trimester with heavy restrictions, or legal with heavy restrictions (beyond rape, incest and saving the mother's life). It's just such a complex issue that it's impossible to break it down into any sort of accurate poll.

nikki1920

06-03-2009, 01:38 PM

I didn't read the article yet.

I believe abortion should be legal up to the second trimester. Some opponents of abortion would have people think that a woman gets pregnant, decides in a few seconds to have an abortion, has the procedure done, and goes on with her life. It's not that simple.

I am pro choice: don't tell me what I can do with my body, and I won't tell you what you can do with yours. <--my personal definition of pro choice.

I see too many parents in my office with too many kids who are too lazy to: stop having unprotected sex, take up the offer for free or low cost contraception or just don't want to utilitze the family planning (up to and including sterilization for men and women). If the government (or whoever) would support a fact-based sex education program, then I believe the number of unintended pregnancies would be reduced.

eta: I am really impressed that this discussion has remained civil and thought provoking. :) Yay, GC!! lol!

SWTXBelle

06-03-2009, 02:06 PM

I would hope that as educated, articulate and involved members of GLOS we would of course be civil. Except when it comes to AI (ducks)! :rolleyes: eta - Maybe it's because we are all fair-minded enough to realize that those who wish abortion to remain legal aren't all crazed baby-killers, and those who want abortion to be illegal aren't all bible-thumping ,women-hating neanderthals. One would hope. Obama is certainly reaching out to both sides, which is a welcome change. YES I agree we need to cut down on the need for abortion at ALL. I do feel I should interject that it is well and good to educate in terms of contraception, but it often fails. I have four children whom I love more than life itself - half of them are the result of contraceptive failure. :eek:

I knew the thread would be hijacked in terms of the discussion of abortion itself, but I am really interested in what the meaning of the Gallup poll is. Some possible theories I have heard in the media:

1.) That people tend to argue against the position of the party in power. Therefore, since Obama is president and Democrats are the majority party, more voters will identify themselves as pro-life. http://www.slate.com/id/2218697/ http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/05/18/gallup_poll/index.html

2.) That we are seeing the first generation of those whose first baby pictures were in utereo coming into adulthood - and they are more likely to identify with the pro-life tag.

3.) That, as we've seen here, there are those who are pro - legal abortion, but who personally feel that abortion is a moral wrong.
http://reason.com/news/show/133737.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104429489

Any other thoughts or insights? The fact that it was a Gallup poll, and not a Planned Parenthood or Right to Life poll, makes it more interesting, I think.

SydneyK

06-03-2009, 02:12 PM

The question is not simply what the government will or will not allow you to do to "their" bodies - were there not another living being concerned, no one would care. Going back to MC's smoking analogy - you can legally smoke, but you cannot infringe on a non-smokers right to not smoke. So the mother can do whatever she likes with her body - the issue becomes more complicated when it becomes about what she wants to do with the body of her child. As to sexually abused and raped - I don't know that an innocent child should have to pay for the crime of his/her father. I don't think that one act of violence should beget another.

I don't think MC meant for the smoking analogy to be taken this way. His analogy, as I understood it, was simply to explain why the anti-abortion/pro-abortion label was flawed.

Pro-X means you're for X, in and of itself. Because you believe someone has the right to do X doesn't mean you like X.

Maybe the right to burn an American flag is a good analogy since it doesn't involve human harm. I myself would never burn an American flag, but I think Americans should have the choice to do so (assuming it causes no harm to others). In this regard, I'm pro-flag-burning-choice, but not pro-flag-burning.

SWTXBelle

06-03-2009, 02:17 PM

And thus the problem with arguments from analogy. Burning a flag doesn't in any way intrude on any one else's rights - you can't argue the flag has a "right" to not be burned. The central issue for abortion is whether or not there is only one person - the mother's - rights to be considered, or whether or not there is another person/potential person's rights which should also be considered. So I'm happy to say pro/anti legalization of abortion, if that makes it clearer.
BUT THEN for extra special bonus fun -what about the rights of the father? If the baby is born, he has an obligation to support the child - does that mean he should have a say in an abortion? If so, to what extent?

MysticCat

06-03-2009, 02:43 PM

So in the meantime,I am all for restrictions being in place: parental notification for minors wishing to have an abortion and be placed on any form of birth control that includes hormones and a medical procedure (such as implants & IUD),

I think this would be counterproductive. I'm thinking back to how I was at 16, and even though my parents are great people and we have an open relationship, I would have been HORRIFIED to ask them, "Hey mom/dad, I really want pills so I can have sex with my boyfriend, but I need you to sign this paper and take time off of work to take me to the clinic so I can get them." As a parent, I'm going with ThetaPrincess on this one. My child's school can't give my kid an aspirin without my permission, but someone can perform a surgical procedure or give my child much more potent drugs without my knowledge, much less my permission? Include safeguards where the child can bypass parental consent where truly appropriate and necessary, but if the kid's a minor, then the kid's a minor and her parents are responsible for her.

I would hope that as educated, articulate and involved members of GLOS we would of course be civil. Except when it comes to AI (ducks)! :rolleyes:I can hear my daughter now: "Oh no you di - nt!" :D

Any other thoughts or insights?Only what I said earlier -- that the terms are vague or fluid enough that they can mean whatever respondents want them to mean.

I don't think MC meant for the smoking analogy to be taken this way. His analogy, as I understood it, was simply to explain why the anti-abortion/pro-abortion label was flawed.

Pro-X means you're for X, in and of itself. Because you believe someone has the right to do X doesn't mean you like X.Exactly! Pro-abortion means you favor abortion. That is quite a different assertion from saying that you believe that the government has a more-or-less limited role in prohibiting abortions. I think agzg hit the nail on the head:

It's ok to call pro-life viewpoints anti-abortion I guess but "pro-abortion" for someone who is pro-choice insinuates that that person would like a free-for-all policy on abortion including late term abortions, encouraged abortions and unsafe practices which is just not true (for the bulk of us that are pro-choice).
And frankly, I think it's an intentional insinuation -- not by SWTXBelle necessary, but by many who would ban abortions. It's a standard political tactic -- skew public opinion of those who oppose you by caricaturing their position. Don't want to outlaw abortions? Then obviously you're in favor of abortions.

I'm content to let people and groups choose for themselves what descriptor is accurate for them.

SydneyK

06-03-2009, 02:53 PM

And thus the problem with arguments from analogy. Burning a flag doesn't in any way intrude on any one else's rights - you can't argue the flag has a "right" to not be burned. The central issue for abortion is whether or not there is only one person - the mother's - rights to be considered, or whether or not there is another person/potential person's rights which should also be considered.

I wasn't comparing flag-burning with abortion. I was using flag-burning as an example of what is insinuated by the term pro-X (whatever X may be).

KSig RC

06-03-2009, 02:55 PM

For me, abortion quickly becomes a pragmatic argument along the following lines:

Why ban abortion?
A: Because it is ending a life.

When does 'life' start?
A: Nobody can define this with any accuracy in ways that do not rely on personal views (primarily spiritual/religious, but 'personal' is much more accurate).

For that reason, the only thing that makes sense from a 'universalist' view is to generally ban abortions starting at the point of viability (since that seems to be the first "indisputable" point of no return). I'm essentially resolute in this, but am open to some exceptions to the absolute (such as a potentially non-viable fetus that endangers the mother's life).

Before the point of viability (which is still arbitrary, but so is the drinking age), I just can't see the state's compelling interest in banning abortion, because the state simply cannot have a "personal" (spiritual/religious) position on the matter. Individuals can, certainly - and if the individual feels that life begins at conception (and therefore, abortion is ending a life at any point), I would invite them to participate in legal, safe opportunities to prevent abortions through means like education and alternative programming. Past that, I see no reason to enact a specific policy on it, in a general sense. Cases such as minors and corner cases should certainly be treated just as they would in any other situation, which is why parental notification and similar don't bother me in any way.

I can't see how this kind of opinion makes me, in any way, "pro-abortion" - in reality, it's pro-individual much more than it is pro-choice or pro-abortion.

As an aside, the semantic gamesmanship behind "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is one of the most amazing pieces of spin in modern history - a tour de force of douchebaggery all the way around.

tri deezy

06-03-2009, 03:23 PM

The question of fathers' rights is an incredibly interesting and difficult question. Where would one even begin? Also, I think it's important to mention that "partial birth" abortions and other types of late-term abortions are extremely rarely performed and are used in cases of medical emergencies. There are diseases that can cause a fetus to be completely non-viable, meaning it could not live outside the womb. What about those? I am without a doubt pro-choice, but I would never call myself pro-abortion and I can't think of a single person who would feel comfortable with that title. This is one of my favorite debate topics.

AOII Angel

06-03-2009, 03:25 PM

As a parent, I'm going with ThetaPrincess on this one. My child's school can't give my kid an aspirin without my permission, but someone can perform a surgical procedure or give my child much more potent drugs without my knowledge, much less my permission? Include safeguards where the child can bypass parental consent where truly appropriate and necessary, but if the kid's a minor, then the kid's a minor and her parents are responsible for her.

I can hear my daughter now: "Oh no you di - nt!" :D

I've gotta tell you...once an underage girl becomes pregnant, for all purposes of her medical care, she is an ADULT. It doesn't matter if she is 9 years old. I think then saying you're an adult and have to make your own medical decisions as a mother, but if you want an abortion you are now a minor and have to ask permission of your parent is stupid.

The problem with a lot of this debate is that it is not completely about abortion rights. The debate includes social and religious views about contraception, pre-marital sex, sex education and a plethora of other topics.
I think at some point we all will have to decide that to reach a goal of decreasing the number of abortions in this country, we have to accept that contraception and sex education should be readily available with NO impediment put on teenagers because of their parents personal moral or religious ideology. A recent study showed that pre-marital sex rates have not changed since the 20's. The polled people from their teens to their 80s and 95% of people reported that they engaged in pre-marital sex. This whole "abstinence" ideal is a myth. People LIE. Do we want to pretend we all were virgins until marriage and leave our children to sneak out and get pregnant because giving contraception "sends the wrong message?" Or do we accept that the VAST MAJORITY of Americans don't practice what they preach and that we'd do our children a favor by being realistic and giving them the tools to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies and deadly diseases?

MysticCat

06-03-2009, 03:29 PM

SWTXBelle

06-03-2009, 03:33 PM

Interesting question raised by AOIIAngel's post - a 9 year old is not legally able to make medical decisions for herself - were she to be pregnant, would she in fact be able to make it for her child, or would it fall to the grandparents? GC lawyers? Haven't there been cases where the (grand)parents wanted a minor woman to have an abortion and she didn't want one? What happens in that case?

FWIW, just because you can have sex and get pregnant does not translate into adulthood for me. Legally speaking, we pick an arbitrary age to make children into adults - we don't base it on physical attributes. I know there was a discussion regarding the 13 year old who didn't want to undergo chemo - he is learning-disabled, and there was a great deal of debate as to how much input a child should have in making medical choices for him/herself.

AOII Angel

06-03-2009, 03:39 PM

And as the father of an 8 1/2.-year-old girl, I think treating a 9-year-old as an adult for almost any purpose is stupid.

She is not an adult. Similar treatments may be called for and the like, but she is not an adult. She cannot make decisions like an adult. She cannot understand the consequences of her decisions like an adult (or like an adult should be able to do).

That may be true, but it is the reality of the situation. I think if you look at it from a medical perspective, 9 year old pregnant girls likely don't have reasonable parents to help them make decisions anyway. I didn't make the rule, but trust me...it's how it works.

ThetaPrincess24

06-03-2009, 03:47 PM

I am enjoying this thread! I think the arguments and ideas presented in this one (unlike some from the past) have been quite civil regardless of disagreement. No one has gotten nasty with each other :)

AGDee

06-03-2009, 03:49 PM

See, all your initial post (and your poll) asked was "are you pro-life or pro-choice." Nothing to indicate we're only talking about a legal question only. Even so, I don't think that the designation helps further any real discussion.

FWIW, my position is this:

I think abortion should be legal with few if any restrictions in essentially the first trimester, with more restrictions as pregnancy progresses, and that it should be illegal if there is any chance of viability.

I think abortion is never a "good" thing, and should be an option of last resort, but there are situations in which in may be a morally acceptable choice -- the lesser of evils.

I think that only the people involved can really make the decision, which is why I think that the government's interest is very limited until such time as the pregnancy has progressed to the point of potential viability.

I think, to quote the old saw, abortions should be safe, legal and rare, and that the best way to see fewer abortions is not to outlaw them (that will just lead to unsafe ones) but to do whatever can be done to avoid the need to consider them in the first place.

I think that, if anyone tries to describe this position as "pro-abortion," the discussion is over. ;)

I agree with most of this. I would add a caveat to #1 to say "unless the life of the mother is at risk due to the pregnancy, in which case, the life of the mother would take precedence"

I am pro birth control--shots, pills, condoms, implants, IUD, sponge, foam, lubricants, and having "tubes tied" (the actual medical term for that slips my mind right now). I also believe with the exception of having tubes tied, the rest should be available to the public for free with no questions asked (this includes dispensers in school restrooms).

... parental notification for minors wishing to have an abortion and be placed on any form of birth control that includes hormones and a medical procedure (such as implants & IUD),

I agree with the first paragraph of yours, which I quoted.

I don't necessarily agree with your second paragraph. My view is greatly slanted because of working on adolescent psych units for 13 years. In a "good" family, all that would work. But, when daughter is being molested by mom's boyfriend and mom won't leave the guy and there isn't enough evidence to have the guy removed from the home, I think *that* kid should be able to get whatever they need to avoid having a baby. When parents are so unrealistic that the girl will be exiled from the family if she does any of those things (because her boyfriend is not of the same religion as them), but she IS going to have sex anyway, she should be able to get those things. (Yes, worked with a 17 year old girl whose family held a funeral for her, refused to speak to her, but allowed her to live in their home and fed her, because they legally had to, because she was dating a boy outside their religion.. she was understandably suicidal). In a "normal" family, they should be able to talk about these things. The problem is, there are far too many families that are totally insane and dysfunctional. While there are currently court processes to get around these kinds of situations, kids don't know how to access that system.

Parents walk a very fine line between trying to teach their kids morality AND responsibility at the same time. You don't want to condone promiscuous sex yet you realize that they will NOT wait until they're married, especially in this day and age when people are getting married later and later, but puberty is happening earlier and earlier. You can talk about what an intimate act it is and how it should only occur when you're really in love and mature enough to handle the consequences, but they THINK they're really in love and mature enough long before they really are. All that said, I have told my daughter that when she is at the point of needing to be on birth control, that I will support her in that. I'm lucky though that she's a kid with pretty good self esteem and strong future goals and she doesn't want to do things that will mess up her future. I have considered, when she or my son starts dating, putting a box of condoms in the linen closet to make them available if they need them, no questions asked, but, like I said, it also kind of feels like I'm condoning it. My hope is that neither of them date someone that seriously for a while so I don't have to deal with it yet.

ETA: I don't think the father should be able to force a woman to have a child, because there are so many complications with carrying a child for 9 months and going through labor. Conversely, I don't think a woman who wants the child should be able to force a man who wants her to have an abortion to support that child forever either. I think men should have some sort of "waiver" they could sign to say they will not accept parental rights or responsibilities if the woman chooses to have the child. Women should not be able to "trap" a man in this way and it's too easy for us to do so at this point in time.

KSigkid

06-03-2009, 04:05 PM

That may be true, but it is the reality of the situation. I think if you look at it from a medical perspective, 9 year old pregnant girls likely don't have reasonable parents to help them make decisions anyway. I didn't make the rule, but trust me...it's how it works.

That's interesting, because there you have a situation where the legal and medical approaches are apparently opposed to each other. That adds a whole other layer to the discussion, in my view, although it starts to get off on a tangent (i.e. at what age should people be able to make their own medical decisions).

ThetaPrincess24

06-03-2009, 04:08 PM

I've gotta tell you...once an underage girl becomes pregnant, for all purposes of her medical care, she is an ADULT. It doesn't matter if she is 9 years old. I think then saying you're an adult and have to make your own medical decisions as a mother, but if you want an abortion you are now a minor and have to ask permission of your parent is stupid.

The problem with a lot of this debate is that it is not completely about abortion rights. The debate includes social and religious views about contraception, pre-marital sex, sex education and a plethora of other topics.
I think at some point we all will have to decide that to reach a goal of decreasing the number of abortions in this country, we have to accept that contraception and sex education should be readily available with NO impediment put on teenagers because of their parents personal moral or religious ideology. A recent study showed that pre-marital sex rates have not changed since the 20's. The polled people from their teens to their 80s and 95% of people reported that they engaged in pre-marital sex. This whole "abstinence" ideal is a myth. People LIE. Do we want to pretend we all were virgins until marriage and leave our children to sneak out and get pregnant because giving contraception "sends the wrong message?" Or do we accept that the VAST MAJORITY of Americans don't practice what they preach and that we'd do our children a favor by being realistic and giving them the tools to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies and deadly diseases?

I agree about the "abstinence" idea. I do think teens are more likely to lie on such polling/research than non-teens for fear of parents finding out about what they really are doing. I do think abstinence should be taught as part of sex education but then it shoudl also be said something along the lines of this.."but if you decide to have sex here is some important information you need to know and ways of protecting yourself..."

My oldest son is having sex. He didnt tell us, but I could tell. I buy him condoms. That way he doesnt have to feel weird about asking because he already has them. I cant be with him every minute of the day to stop him from having sex, but I will encourage and promote safer sex by buying him condoms and talking to him about their proper use, STD's, etc. I think he listens most of the time :)

As for the debate about parental notification. I understand the point about some kids being so horrified of their parents not to ask. So I have this question. Your teens goes and gets an abortion. The pregnancy is terminated and she is no longer pregnant. You know nothing about it. Later she starts having complications. You are freaking out because you have no idea what the hell is going on. Is that something you want to find out in an ER? She wont be pregnant then and will be back to being a minor that needs medical treatment. Hormonal birth control--Most ladies dont suffer side effects. Some suffer very dangerous side effects. I'll use stroke for example (and a higher risk if woman smokes). Your child gets hormonal birth control from wherever without your knowledge. Some time goes by and she has a stroke. Your freak out wondering how she had a stroke so young. later you find out it was caused from birth control that you didnt know she was taking. Is that another scenario you want to find out about after the fact? There are side effects with implants. Do you want to find out your daughter had an implant after the fact if it gets infected and needs medical treatment?

I would prefer my children to wait, preferably until marriage but definitely until college. Whiel this isnt the case for all parents I'm more than happy to help them get birth control and whatever exams they need. But I WOULD BE FURIOUS if someone did those things without my consent/knowledge with the side effects/complications that can go with those. I've seen too much as a nurse in private practice with high risk groups to budge from that opinion.

PhoenixAzul

06-03-2009, 04:26 PM

^ At what age would you let your child make choices about her birth control method? At 16? At 18? I'm just curious because there are 17 year olds in college...and I'm imagining a scenario of having to go to the campus clinic and ask for birth control or plan B or an HIV test, and them having to call your mom and dad and ask for a permission slip to write a script (and then the backlash from that request that would occur in some households). I guess I'd see that as a huge violation of my privacy as a person. At what point are you no longer a child? Legally, I suppose 18...but someone in college (or working on their own after high school) still needing their mom and dad to OK a medical decision? What if the family situation sucks and the parents would deny their daughter treatment out of spite (ha! let her deal with it, she's not our problem anymore!).

SWTXBelle

06-03-2009, 04:58 PM

AOII Angel

06-03-2009, 05:11 PM

As for the debate about parental notification. I understand the point about some kids being so horrified of their parents not to ask. So I have this question. Your teens goes and gets an abortion. The pregnancy is terminated and she is no longer pregnant. You know nothing about it. Later she starts having complications. You are freaking out because you have no idea what the hell is going on. Is that something you want to find out in an ER? She wont be pregnant then and will be back to being a minor that needs medical treatment. Hormonal birth control--Most ladies dont suffer side effects. Some suffer very dangerous side effects. I'll use stroke for example (and a higher risk if woman smokes). Your child gets hormonal birth control from wherever without your knowledge. Some time goes by and she has a stroke. Your freak out wondering how she had a stroke so young. later you find out it was caused from birth control that you didnt know she was taking. Is that another scenario you want to find out about after the fact? There are side effects with implants. Do you want to find out your daughter had an implant after the fact if it gets infected and needs medical treatment?

I would prefer my children to wait, preferably until marriage but definitely until college. Whiel this isnt the case for all parents I'm more than happy to help them get birth control and whatever exams they need. But I WOULD BE FURIOUS if someone did those things without my consent/knowledge with the side effects/complications that can go with those. I've seen too much as a nurse in private practice with high risk groups to budge from that opinion.
I think as a parent (though I don't have any kids) I would want my children to be honest with me about what they are doing, but not all children have those types of relationships with their parents. I don't think my parents would have reacted logically to a request by any of my siblings to start using birth control. Hell...my parents called me daily for three months freaking out when they found out that at 24 I was living with my fiance! It didn't stop until I put my foot down that I was old enough to make my own decisions.

Birth control pills definitely do have some side effects. They are RARE, but they do happen. If you agreed to give your child OCPs to prevent pregnancy would you feel any less upset than if you had not given your consent? Would your really tell your daughter, "I'm sorry, I won't give you birth control pills because there is a 1 in 100,000 risk that you could get a stroke." Is preventing pregnancy not a valid reason to take that type of risk? Kids can already take over the counter medications without the consent of parents, which in many cases have many more risks and side effects than OCPs which have been proven as safe. OCPs have almost been made over the counter drugs on multiple occasions. They are that safe. The only reason they are still prescription is because OB-GYNs argue that they will not be able to get women to come in yearly for their Pap Smears if they can't withhold OCPs. Do you think you'll have any say when they inevitably go over the counter?

I applaud your actions with your son. Unfortunately, too many people have a double standard for their daughters.

SWTXBelle

06-03-2009, 05:24 PM

I am one of those women who had a problem with side effects with the pill. I had what my doctor termed a "mini-stroke" and had to get off of them. They are serious stuff, and sometimes I think we have a rather cavalier attitude about them.

As long as we're sharing personal insights - my eldest daughter did not date at all until college, so talking about sex was abstract (although still important). On the way to college I told her that even if she was told by her ob/gyn that she would have trouble getting pregnant she should bear in mind that is what they told her mother, the mother of 4, and her grandmother, the mother of 4. She should assume that if she is having sex, she could very well get pregnant. My younger daugther came to me at 16 and said she wanted to go on the pill. I took her to the doctor and discussed everything with them - we've had to change prescriptions. She seems to be doing fine - currently she isn't involved in a relationship, but I'd just as soon she stayed on them as opposed to getting off of them and then back on - they also help her in other ways - don't want to post TMI. Her father (my ex) refused to even DISCUSS it with our daughter - nothing like putting your head in the sand . . . I hope my girls now (and boys later) know that my ultimate goal is their happiness, and they can tell me anything, knowing that I love them and want only the best for them.

AGDee

06-03-2009, 08:22 PM

I believe that most states with parental notification laws have, as part of the law, an "out" for minors whose parents would not be able to handle the situation - http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/(JM)TexasParentalConsent.pdf

We have an "out" for minors whose parents would not be able to handle the situation in Michigan's law but, as I stated earlier, 14 and 15 year olds don't know how to access that "out" or are afraid to. Additionally, in my county, it involves going to downtown Detroit, twice, which means you need transportation to get there. It's a really intimidating process if you ask me.

I find some irony in that, a 14 year old can have a baby without parental consent/notification but not an abortion. Which one has a longer term effect on the whole family?

ETA: I think parents that would want to know and are open to the idea are going to raise their kids knowing that they can come to them with any problem, no matter how big, and they will, 90% of the time. If you want your child to feel comfortable coming to you for these things, then you raise them with that underlying tenet. I can't see my daughter getting an abortion without telling me, so I wouldn't feel threatened if the law wasn't there. SWTX Belle, it sounds like you're raising your kids the same way.

MysticCat

06-03-2009, 10:15 PM

That may be true, but it is the reality of the situation. I think if you look at it from a medical perspective, 9 year old pregnant girls likely don't have reasonable parents to help them make decisions anyway. I didn't make the rule, but trust me...it's how it works.Oh, I agree that in the hypothetical 9-year-old child's family is not likely to be much help. That's why there are guardians ad litem and the like.

And I know you didn't make the rules. But if that's really how it works, this passage from Oliver Twist is brought to mind:

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

:D

squirrely girl

06-05-2009, 02:22 PM

My view is greatly slanted because of working on adolescent psych units for 13 years.

exactly! i worked with kids in state's custody for about five years and my views are forever slanted now. i think morals and lofty ideals work out fine for most people until they end up in situations like the ones you described. life isn't as black and white as people want to make it out to be.

even in my own recent pregnancy and birth of my son, i found myself in a weird gray area. i was RELIGIOUS about taking my birth control and using alternate methods during the "off week". so who has two thumbs and was part of the 1% who got pregnant on birth control? this girl!

i'm pro-choice politically (i'm the only one who should be making decisions about my vagina and uterus and i feel the same about everybody else's reproductive organs as well), but i don't personally believe in abortion (i guess i'll blame my catholic upbringing).

now here i was, a recently divorced, third year ph.d. student, living in a one bedroom apartment with my bf, getting by on the pittance that the university pays me as a grad student and whatever adjunct positions i can pick up each semester. really not the ideal for having a child. however, with family help we were able to pull it off and we're doing as well as we can in this economy and our situation.

can i sit here and pretend that abortion was never a thought? hell no. of course it went through my mind. i'm glad i made the decision that i made, but i feel like i had (and still do) a lot of support. not every person has that. i won't judge other people's lives that i don't live on daily basis. that's just ignorant.

so i guess i consider myself pro-choice. i chose to have my child.

- m

UGAalum94

06-05-2009, 03:04 PM

At some point, though, rhetoric about having control of your body falls apart unless you don't believe that at any point in pregnancy the fetus becomes a person. I think people who believe that fetuses shouldn't have any legal protections as people until they are actually born are pretty rare. Are you just controlling your body if you abort a healthy fetus in the 38th week? It seems to me that you wouldn't just be controlling your body; you're terminating the life of another.

I'm also perplexed by why rape or incest (or fetal disability) make a difference in cases carried beyond whatever limits you would otherwise impose. We don't go around killing the products of rape or incest (or the disabled) after they are born, so why would we make exceptions in the cases that for whatever reasons we'd otherwise legal restrict? (I understand why people who want no abortions at all make allowances because it seems too cruel not to, but it makes less sense to permit these exceptions in a system that would allow early abortions for any reasons.)

And for those of us who would restrict abortions after viability, what standard are you using? The lowest age a fetus has survived at? The age at which 50% of more fetuses would likely survive? What do you do as this age is pushed lower because of neo-natal technology? Why does the standard of inducing birth and seeing if the fetus survives seems so barbaric but allowing abortions at the same age doesn't?

KSig RC

06-05-2009, 04:09 PM

And for those of us who would restrict abortions after viability, what standard are you using? The lowest age a fetus has survived at? The age at which 50% of more fetuses would likely survive? What do you do as this age is pushed lower because of neo-natal technology? Why does the standard of inducing birth and seeing if the fetus survives seems so barbaric but allowing abortions at the same age doesn't?

The AMA has said, if I recall correctly, 24 weeks - that seems like a good standard, and is one that doesn't rely on a concept of "soul" (which is absolutely no reason to make a law).

You really don't see why inducing labor for a fetus and "seeing what happens" (given the massive incidence of birth defects, death, etc.) is distasteful?

UGAalum94

06-05-2009, 04:18 PM

The AMA has said, if I recall correctly, 24 weeks - that seems like a good standard, and is one that doesn't rely on a concept of "soul" (which is absolutely no reason to make a law).

You really don't see why inducing labor for a fetus and "seeing what happens" (given the massive incidence of birth defects, death, etc.) is distasteful?

Oh, I see why it's distasteful. It's more the idea that that people don't see abortion at the same stage the same way. [ETA: Or that they consciously choose to suppress that knowledge in their desire to defer to the mother's rights]
It's weird that the disposition of the mother towards the fetus apparently changes the way people view the act so much. The outcome for the fetus might actually be better with the induce and see what happens method.

It's kind of odd on some level to talk about viability being the standard and yet requiring the fetus to be carried to term because we suspect it's hit a point it could survive outside the uterus. [ETA: by this I don't mean that I don't think the viable don't deserve legal protection from termination; just that it's kind of weird.]

EATA: I'd probably restrict earlier in the pregnancy than viability, but I don't think that protection at conception is workable. Too many other medical procedures that people want to see available involve the creation and destruction of embryos. But I'd restrict pretty absolutely at viability, not just a nebulous injury to the health of the mother but only cases in which the mother's life was actually in immediate danger.

SWTXBelle

06-06-2009, 08:41 AM

http://www.slate.com/id/2219765/

Munchkin03

06-06-2009, 08:35 PM

But even that, which is more thorough, misses some of the issues. There are people who think it should be legal through the third trimester with heavy restrictions, or legal with heavy restrictions (beyond rape, incest and saving the mother's life). It's just such a complex issue that it's impossible to break it down into any sort of accurate poll.

I agree. There's not even an option for cases where the child will die either in utero or soon after birth, like in the case of anenocephaly, which is often diagnosed pretty late in the pregnancy (don't Google it, please!), or even one of the trisomies where the baby may not make it an hour after birth.

The way I see it is, and I think most people agree: like much of life itself, there are too many shades of grey. I know I'm pro-life for myself, but pro-choice for the other 6.1 billion people on this planet. Does that make me a hypocrite? I hope not!

tri deezy

06-07-2009, 12:33 AM

sdeason1

06-07-2009, 03:04 PM

There has to be cases where a fetus needs and has to be terminated for the health of the parent and the fetus. So if the fetus goes to term and becomes a vegetable as it were, is that right? Dr. Tiller I am sure was a caring person and only did what he thought was best, not for the money. It is sad that a deminted person took it upon himself to slay him and in a church to boot. Being in the world of drugs, the options are very scary according to the ads of what can happen? Are the cures correct enough to offset the cures and cause further problems and even death.

DrPhil

06-07-2009, 04:49 PM

There's another I learned about in biology class in which the embryo fails to turn into a fetus and becomes like a type of parasitic tumor that can kill the mother. What about that?

Beyond gross. Is it similar or the same as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu

I know of lesser reasons to terminate a pregnancy, but I definitely see nothing wrong with aborting a tumor that is "alive," but is basically nothingness.

So if the fetus goes to term and becomes a vegetable as it were, is that right?

No, it isn't right.

However, many disagree with me. It's fine to disagree and for people to choose whatever works for them and is within legal boundaries. That's what pro-choice means to me. :)

AOII Angel

06-07-2009, 06:03 PM

Potter's Syndrome and Anecephaly were two of the big ones I was thinking of when I wrote my post about non-viable babies. There's another I learned about in biology class in which the embryo fails to turn into a fetus and becomes like a type of parasitic tumor that can kill the mother. What about that? Some would even argue that it would be wrong to terminate that pregnancy.
You're thinking of a molar pregnancy. These can actually be cancerous. This would be caught in early pregnancy, though, since it makes the mother really sick. Another common reason for first trimester abortions is ectopic pregnancies. These are "viable" pregnancies that are routinely terminated to save the life of the mother. Would anyone say that those pregnancies should be saved?

SWTXBelle

06-07-2009, 06:18 PM

AOII Angel

06-07-2009, 06:34 PM

Are ectopic considered viable? I've always understood them to be nonviable because the growing fetus will rupture the fallopian tube.

And while there is a small minority of pro-lifers who might argue that yes, the pregnancy should continue if the mother's life is at risk, the vast majority (including all that I know) would accept that as a legitimate reason for aborting before viability.
The vast majority of ectopic pregnancies will not survive to term. However, nothing is actually wrong with the fetus itself that we know of. There have been many ectopics that have survived to term, some within the fallopian tubes, some in the abdominal cavity. Not all ectopics are in the fallopian tubes, though, most are.

tri deezy

06-07-2009, 10:34 PM

Beyond gross. Is it similar or the same as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu

No, not fetus in fetu. That's not necessarily fatal and that's when the fetus becomes a parasite to its living twin. The twin can survive with the non-viable twin inside them for years and years if it doesn't disrupt their vital organs or take up too much of their blood supply. There have been a few documentaries about fetus in fetu. Pretty creepy stuff.

tri deezy

06-07-2009, 10:39 PM

AOII Angel

06-08-2009, 05:40 AM

I saw an incredible documentary about a set of triplets. The incredible part was that the boy triplet was an ectopic pregnancy that they didn't know about until they delivered the other two babies. Somehow his embryo had attached to the outside of another organ below her uterus (must have been bowels, but I just can't remember). Since it wasn't in the fallopian tube, the fetus was able to survive without rupturing the tube and killing the mother. The amazing thing about his survival was that it suggested that a fetus doesn't need female organs to survive and that there is a possibility with the right technology that someday, a male could carry an implanted fetus to term. Obviously a lot of medical complexities, and we're not anywhere near that just yet, but just a little something to think about.

The problem they can't overcome, however, is the damage done by placental attachment to intra-abdominal organs. The endometrial lining is meant to accept the placenta (though there are cases where the placenta extends to the muscle of the uterus and can't be dislodged after delivery requiring an emergency hysterectomy.) Most people who successfully deliver an intra-abdominal ectopic have to have bowel resection...sometimes they die from hemorrhage.

deepimpact2

06-08-2009, 03:54 PM

I know I'm pro-life for myself, but pro-choice for the other 6.1 billion people on this planet. Does that make me a hypocrite? I hope not!
No, it doesn't. It means you recognize that while YOU may not wish to make that choice, other people should have the opportunity to do so.

I don't know if I would ever be able to have an abortion, but I definitely think I should be able to have that option if the situation arises.

What I find hypocritical is being against abortion, but in support of the death penalty.

DrPhil

06-08-2009, 04:03 PM

What I find hypocritical is being against abortion, but in support of the death penalty.

I see what you mean on the basis of human life.

The difference is that an unborn child hasn't done anything and is considered an innocent life. On the other hand, a person given the death penalty has been found by the legal system to have done something.

starang21

06-08-2009, 04:08 PM

For those of you who say you are anti-abortion in the sense that you would never have one, or feel it is immoral, but say you are pro-legal abortion, what is the rationale?

what someone else does with their body isn't my responsibility. who am i to dictate what they do?

SWTXBelle

06-08-2009, 05:00 PM

texas*princess

06-08-2009, 05:18 PM

article on Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/06/01/late_term_abortion/index.html)

Susan Hill, President of the National Women's Health Foundation, who knew Dr. Tiller for over two decades and referred girls and women to his clinic, said in a phone interview, "We always sent the really tragic cases to Tiller." Those included women diagnosed with cancer who needed abortions to qualify for chemotherapy, women who learned late in their pregnancies that their wanted babies had fatal illnesses, and rape victims so young they didn't realize they were pregnant for months. "We sent him 11-year-olds, 12-year-olds who were way too far along for anybody [else] to see," said Hill. "Eleven-year-olds don't tell anybody. Sometimes they don't even know they've had a period."

Since the news of Dr. Tiller's murder broke, personal narratives from people who used his services have been appearing around the Web. A commenter at the blog Balloon Juice told the story of finding out in the eighth month of his wife's pregnancy that she was carrying conjoined twins. "Conjoined twins alone is not what was so difficult but the way they were joined meant that at best only one child would survive the surgery to separate them and the survivor would more than likely live a brief and painful life filled with surgery and organ transplants." They chose to terminate the much-wanted pregnancy, rather than bring a child into the world only to suffer and die. "The nightmare of our decision and the aftermath was only made bearable by the warmth and compassion of Dr. Tiller and his remarkable staff." A commenter on Metafilter tells a similar story: "My wife and I spent a week in Dr. Tiller's care after we learned our 21 week fetus had a severe defect incompatible with life. The laws in our state prevented us from ending the pregnancy there, and Dr. Tiller was one of maybe three choices in the whole nation at that gestational age." He went on to share his memories of Dr. Tiller. "I remember him firmly stating that he regarded the abortion debate in the US to be about the control of women's sexuality and reproduction. I remember he spent over six hours in one-on-one care with my wife when there was concern she had an infection. We're talking about a physician here. Six hours.... The walls of the clinic reception and waiting room are literally covered with letters from patients thanking him. Some were heartbreaking -- obviously young and/or poorly educated people thanking Dr. Tiller for being there when they had no other options, explaining their family, church, etc. had abandoned them."

Links to older stories are also spreading on social media and blogs. A 2001 article originally published in Glamour relates the experience of Gloria Gonzalez, who learned that the twins she was carrying were gravely ill and threatening her own health. "As a Christian and a married woman who desperately wanted a child, I'd never given much thought to abortion. Like many others, I assumed that only women with unwanted pregnancies had the procedure." Yet after she and her husband consulted with several doctors and their pastor, "We knew what we had to do. Letting the girls die on their own didn't seem like an option, because we believed they were suffering while endangering my own health." The Web site A Heartbreaking Choice, which compiles stories from women who have chosen to terminate wanted pregnancies, has a section devoted to "Kansas Stories," from women who traveled to Wichita after receiving catastrophic diagnoses too late in their pregnancies to obtain legal abortions in their own states. The stories are painfully similar: A couple is thrilled to be expecting a baby, only to see a doctor's face turn grim during a routine ultrasound. Something is terribly wrong. And whatever the specific diagnosis is, the prognosis is essentially the same: If your baby lives, it will suffer constantly and die young.

The trauma of receiving such a diagnosis is only compounded by the difficulty of obtaining a late-term abortion. Writes one woman, "The reality is that finding a doctor to do this procedure in the late second or third trimester is almost impossible. For me, the reality was that at the most painful time of my life I had to travel out of state, stay in a hotel room and face hostile protesters in order to carry out this most personal of choices." Another writes, "I had to fly to Kansas to have the procedure done. It was a five-day out patient procedure that cost us almost $9,000 after all was said and done. I am hurt and angry at the state of Maryland for taking away my right to allow my daughter to die in peace ... I was appalled that Maryland did not have a quality-of-life addendum to the late-term termination law." Susan Hill says enduring the expense and stress of travel is the only option for most women who need late abortions in the U.S. "The restrictions under the Bush administration made it impossible for most states to allow abortions past 16 weeks. All the southern states are restricted tremendously. A few places in New York, if it was medically necessary, could possibly do it, but the paperwork was unbelievable, and there was no time left. That's why they referred people to Tiller. And for that he lost his life. "

AOII Angel

06-08-2009, 05:20 PM

It's not what you want to do to YOUR body - it's what you want to do to the unborn BABY'S that raises the question. Were it merely a case of doing something to your body - like piercing, or plastic surgery - no one, not even self-proclaimed pro-lifers, would care.

I don't like tattoos, but have no reason to prevent you from getting one. That analogy doesn't translate into a discussion about abortion, because there is a third party involved. If a woman has an abortion, her right to HER body infringes on the right of another - hence the term "right to life". As to the question of "Who am I to dictate . . .", well, you do it all the time through the laws of your country. We dictate how fast you can drive your car, when you can drink, at what age you can get a tattoo, when you can sign a contract . . . who are we to dictate? We are citizens who don't wish to live in anarchy.

But at the same time, we do not legislate what pregnant women can or cannot do to their bodies when pregnant. They can drink, smoke, do drugs, etc. This clearly will have an effect on the fetus, including death, birth defects, addiction, but we don't outlaw those either. Fetuses only have rights up to a certain extent.

My personal opinion about abortion is this:

First trimester abortions should be completely unrestricted.
Second and Third trimester abortions should be allowed ONLY for severe birth defects (completely up to patient/doctor discretion, so yes, if a woman wants to abort her Down Syndrome fetus, that is her choice!), non-viability of the fetus, rape or incest victims and severe risk to the mother's life, up to 27 weeks.
-Neonatologist can routinely save 27 week premies. The results at this point for any fetus younger than that age are so variable across the country that it is NONVIABLE in many areas. This week should change as our technology changes.
-Many severe defects are only fully evaluated beyond the point where the fetus is still first trimester.
-The life of the mother should ALWAYS come first. If the pregnancy is beyond 27 weeks, then labor should be induced rather than abortion performed to save the life of the mother.

My rationale for this opinion is that first trimester fetuses have not fully developed any organ systems and are essentially a ball of cells. This gives mothers of unwanted pregnancies a chance to decide what is best for themselves.

Second and third trimester fetuses have developed all of their organ systems and can be easily identified as babies. Termination should be a last resort at this point. If a woman can't get it together to have an abortion before this point, she's S.O.L!

texas*princess

06-08-2009, 05:34 PM

Are ectopic considered viable? I've always understood them to be nonviable because the growing fetus will rupture the fallopian tube.

And while there is a small minority of pro-lifers who might argue that yes, the pregnancy should continue if the mother's life is at risk, the vast majority (including all that I know) would accept that as a legitimate reason for aborting before viability.

So ... I feel like you're giving conflicting opinions here. Before, in your own words, you said you're either "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion". Many people have disagreed with your terms, but that's not really the issue right now.

If this is really what you believe, how can you be ANTI-abortion, if you think it's OK to terminate a pregnancy at all ?

DSTRen13

06-08-2009, 06:05 PM

But at the same time, we do not legislate what pregnant women can or cannot do to their bodies when pregnant. They can drink, smoke, do drugs, etc. This clearly will have an effect on the fetus, including death, birth defects, addiction, but we don't outlaw those either. Fetuses only have rights up to a certain extent.

My personal opinion about abortion is this:

First trimester abortions should be completely unrestricted.
Second and Third trimester abortions should be allowed ONLY for severe birth defects (completely up to patient/doctor discretion, so yes, if a woman wants to abort her Down Syndrome fetus, that is her choice!), non-viability of the fetus, rape or incest victims and severe risk to the mother's life, up to 27 weeks.
-Neonatologist can routinely save 27 week premies. The results at this point for any fetus younger than that age are so variable across the country that it is NONVIABLE in many areas. This week should change as our technology changes.
-Many severe defects are only fully evaluated beyond the point where the fetus is still first trimester.
-The life of the mother should ALWAYS come first. If the pregnancy is beyond 27 weeks, then labor should be induced rather than abortion performed to save the life of the mother.

My rationale for this opinion is that first trimester fetuses have not fully developed any organ systems and are essentially a ball of cells. This gives mothers of unwanted pregnancies a chance to decide what is best for themselves.

Second and third trimester fetuses have developed all of their organ systems and can be easily identified as babies. Termination should be a last resort at this point. If a woman can't get it together to have an abortion before this point, she's S.O.L!

^^^ I pretty much second all of this!

SWTXBelle

06-08-2009, 07:21 PM

Actually, pregnant women have been charged with abuse based on their behaviors before the child was born (drugs, for example http://www.wspa.com/spa/news/local/article/newborn_tests_positive_for_meth_mother_charged/16838/ ) - and, for example, Conor Peterson's father was charged with his murder, even though he was still in utereo. There oughta be a law - and there is .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act. So as a society we do believe some actions which impact an unborn baby are not only morally wrong, but legally.

As to TP's comment - as has been pointed out before, most of those who are pro-legal abortion aren't 100%, at all times, no exceptions, in support of abortion on demand, and most pro-lifers are not 100%, at all times, no exceptions, no abortions ever. Making an exception for a pregnancy which will result in the death of the mother is still pro-life - it just makes an exception for a situation in which both lives cannot be preserved. A life is still being saved - and weighing the two lives, the rights of the mother would seem to me to logically outweigh the rights of the unborn - but it is an exceptional situation. If it makes you feel better, call me anti-legalized abortion on demand. It is a logical fallacy to call it an either/or situation.

texas*princess

06-08-2009, 08:06 PM

As to TP's comment - as has been pointed out before, most of those who are pro-legal abortion aren't 100%, at all times, no exceptions, in support of abortion on demand, and most pro-lifers are not 100%, at all times, no exceptions, no abortions ever. Making an exception for a pregnancy which will result in the death of the mother is still pro-life - it just makes an exception for a situation in which both lives cannot be preserved. A life is still being saved - and weighing the two lives, the rights of the mother would seem to me to logically outweigh the rights of the unborn - but it is an exceptional situation. If it makes you feel better, call me anti-legalized abortion on demand. It is a logical fallacy to call it an either/or situation.

If it's not 100% either way, I think that's just another argument against your "anti-abortion"/"pro abortion" terminology/thought process/belief.

AOII Angel

06-08-2009, 08:34 PM

SWTXBelle

06-08-2009, 09:11 PM

If it's not 100% either way, I think that's just another argument against your "anti-abortion"/"pro abortion" terminology/thought process/belief.

I've specified that for the purposes of the political discussion of the topic presented in the poll I meant anti/pro- legalized abortion - and my point is that those who apply those labels to themselves do so with some caveats. Again, not an either/or situation.

Using your logic, it would be most accurate to term my beliefs as "pro-life", because they spring from a desire to save lives, born and unborn. But since we are talking about the legalization of abortion, the most accurate term is anti-abortion,with the understanding that it is possible to be against abortion on demand but to make exceptions in rare and defined cases (i.e., life of the mother), just as someone might call themselves "pro-choice", but believe that the choice being talked about has some limits. Most pro-legalized abortion people I know have a limit to what they will accept as abortion on demand - they would not sanction an abortion at 38 weeks, for example. Does that mean they are hypocrites? Hardly. It means that we are talking about an issue with a great deal of complexity to it.

SWTXBelle

06-08-2009, 09:18 PM

Yeah...you can find a couple cases, but I've seen countless others that are never prosecuted. Shoot, most states won't even prosecute parents who kill their babies in car wrecks because they don't put them in car seats. And that's with definitive laws requiring the use of car seats.

Actually, I can found quite a few with very little research- and I can think of at least a handful of cases off the top of my head covered here in TX of parents who were prosecuted for the deaths of their children for their failure to properly secure them. Two weeks ago we had a case of a toddler who fell out of a truck. My brother is a police officer who ALWAYS writes up parents who he sees with unsecured children in their cars. I'm not sure how to find cases which weren't prosecuted - I would think they wouldn't be covered, and I guess I'm not searching using the correct terms. How did you find them? ( And yes, I realize we've gotten a little far afield here - but since AOIIAngel used the example of parents being prosecuted for a specific law, that's what I addressed.)

But in the final analysis, it doesn't matter whether or not the criminals are prosecuted - the issue is that as a point of law our society recognizes unborn children as having rights - limited rights, and rights which are subject (obviously!) to a great deal of moral and legal wrangling in order to support, but rights which do exist.

Pearlove

06-09-2009, 06:20 AM

I have had to have two abortions in my life. For both times the reason I got pregnant despite the birth control I was taking at the time, was because I wasn't informed by my doctor or pharmacist that the antibiotic I was taking at the time, negated the effectiveness of my birth control. Both times I was with my boyfriend of five years and he supported me in whatever I would decide. I still regret having them but not as much as I would've regretted keeping them. As a biology major I also know that being in the first trimester my babies had not yet reached the point of consciousness, or found the ability to feel pain, the defining characteristics that makes us human. I also know had I not had the abortions I would never have been able go to the college of my choice, or for that matter join my sorority.
So, to the people out there that so vehemently oppose what I have done, from the standpoint of a scared 17 year old girl, you should concentrate on improving the lives of those around you and not tell me what to do with mine. It is my own decision to live with.

SWTXBelle

06-09-2009, 07:30 AM

TWICE you didn't bother to read the insert in your birth control and/or in the antibiotics you were given in order to know any drug interactions? TWICE in one year (when you were 17)? Really? And you are a biology major?

For the record, you could have both gone to whatever college you wanted (maybe not when you had hoped to, but you could have) and joined a sorority had you chosen to give the babies up for adoption. One of my chapter sisters did just that - and one consideration in giving her a bid was the character she showed as a scared 17 year old.

Defining being human as having " reached the point of consciousness, or found the ability to feel pain" means that there are a great many people in comas you don't regard as human - and what of those who are born with the rare inability to register pain? Are they not human?

As to improving the lives of those around me - that's exactly what I do by supporting agencies that provide support for scared 17 year olds. I've referenced the Edna Gladney Center above. Women there can attend high school AND college, have counseling and medical care, and are able to both improve their lives and give life to their babies, and those who give them up for adoption contribute to improving the lives of infertile couples.

eta - I want to be clear that while I think you made an unfortunate choice (well, two), I am sympathetic to the plight of ANY woman who finds herself in that situation. I have 4 children - 3 of whom were "unplanned". I know what it is to feel the panic and fear of having your life turned upside down. Baby #2 came in the midst of our unemployment - no insurance, no real income - yikes! Baby #4 came a mere 15 months after baby #3 - and I was 38 at the time. But out of fear and panic can come opportunity, and often the things we fear most turn out to be blessings in disguise.

AOII Angel

06-09-2009, 07:44 AM

Actually, I can found quite a few with very little research- and I can think of at least a handful of cases off the top of my head covered here in TX of parents who were prosecuted for the deaths of their children for their failure to properly secure them. Two weeks ago we had a case of a toddler who fell out of a truck. My brother is a police officer who ALWAYS writes up parents who he sees with unsecured children in their cars. I'm not sure how to find cases which weren't prosecuted - I would think they wouldn't be covered, and I guess I'm not searching using the correct terms. How did you find them? ( And yes, I realize we've gotten a little far afield here - but since AOIIAngel used the example of parents being prosecuted for a specific law, that's what I addressed.)

But in the final analysis, it doesn't matter whether or not the criminals are prosecuted - the issue is that as a point of law our society recognizes unborn children as having rights - limited rights, and rights which are subject (obviously!) to a great deal of moral and legal wrangling in order to support, but rights which do exist.

I've personally seen the children come in dead because they aren't physically restrained. I did two years of general surgery residency at a Level 1 Trauma center. My attending, who was very active in national trauma surgery groups, was part of a movement to convince DAs around the country that yes, parents should be prosecuted for these cases. Few of the cases made it to courts because the DA felt the "parents had suffered enough already." The ones that do make it to court are the egregious ones like the one I personally witnessed- a morbidly obese woman was holding her 6 week old baby while driving. She got in a wreck and crushed her baby between the steering wheel and her body. Gruesome. Unfortunately, the parents had suffered enough on the countless kids I treated with severe head injuries after flying around a car unrestrained.

So far, the unborn really don't have any rights. See how many cases of crack mothers you can find that have been prosecuted. Babies are born EVERY SINGLE day in the US addicted to drugs. The state takes those babies away but RARELY goes after the mother.

AOII Angel

06-09-2009, 07:46 AM

TWICE you didn't bother to read the insert in your birth control and/or in the antibiotics you were given in order to know any drug interactions? TWICE in one year (when you were 17)? Really? And you are a biology major?

For the record, you could have both gone to whatever college you wanted (maybe not when you had hoped to, but you could have) and joined a sorority had you chosen to give the babies up for adoption. One of my chapter sisters did just that - and one consideration in giving her a bid was the character she showed as a scared 17 year old.

Defining being human as having " reached the point of consciousness, or found the ability to feel pain" means that there are a great many people in comas you don't regard as human - and what of those who are born with the rare inability to register pain? Are they not human?

As to improving the lives of those around me - that's exactly what I do by supporting agencies that provide support for scared 17 year olds. I've referenced the Edna Gladney Center above. Women there can attend high school AND college, have counseling and medical care, and are able to both improve their lives and give life to their babies, and those who give them up for adoption contribute to improving the lives of infertile couples.

Just remember that every person is different and every town does not have a Edna Gladney Center. You're community is lucky to have that option, but it isn't available to everyone.

SWTXBelle

06-09-2009, 08:47 AM

AOIIAngel - the unborn do have federal rights - see the above link to information on the Violence against Unborn act . . .

As to restraints - the laws should be enforced.

starang21

06-09-2009, 08:49 AM

SydneyK

06-09-2009, 09:13 AM

Second and third trimester fetuses have developed all of their organ systems and can be easily identified as babies. Termination should be a last resort at this point. If a woman can't get it together to have an abortion before this point, she's S.O.L!

For most unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, I would agree with this statement. In the case of pregnancies where birth defects aren't detected until the second or third trimester, however, I can't really blame the woman for not "getting it together" enough to have had an abortion earlier.

It's easy, in conversations like this, to forget that it isn't just unwed young women who are having abortions. (General observation - not directed at you, AOII Angel.)

SWTXBelle

06-09-2009, 09:52 AM

that "baby" is still dependant on that woman's body for "life." she should be able to do what she wants to do with it. you act as if though pepple are getting abortions at the same rate as people speed or get a tatoo. your logic is WAY off.

Never did I say anything about the rate of "pepple"(sic) getting abortions nor did I equate abortions to tattoos. I used tattoos as an example of something you could do to your body which would not impact anyone else. Let me point out that society does in fact tell you what you can do with your body all the time. You cannot get a tattoo before a certain age, you cannot take certain drugs without a doctor's prescription, you cannot drive if you have ingested a certain amount of alcohol, you cannot chose to take illegal drugs, and there are even laws against suicide. So, as a society we have decided that there are some things you cannot do to your body.

You are reacting emotionally, not logically. My logic is not WAY off - your understanding is.( For handy reference - http://www.logicalfallacies.info/)

Once more - the argument that "It is my body - society has no right to tell me what to do with it" is predicated on the belief that it is only a woman's body being discussed. It is not - there is another being in the discussion. If being "dependant"( sic) meant the baby had no rights at all, we would not have the federal law which does in fact give the unborn some limited rights.

The fundamental question which has to be grappled with is at what point does the right of a fetus to continue to grow and develop override the right of a mother to have control (i.e. abort the fetus) over her body. Addressing THAT question eliminates a great deal of the emotional rhetoric, and makes for a logical discussion of what path we as a society should take.

Do you believe in unlimited abortion; basically it's okay until the baby's head is crowning? Probably not - although I guess those people are out there. If not, then it's like the joke:
Man - "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
Woman - "For a million dollars? Why, yes!"
Man - "Would you sleep with me for a six pack?"
Woman - "What kind of woman do you think I am?"
Man - "We've already established that. Now we are just quibbling over price."

If you don't believe in unlimited abortion, and thus believe that at some point the fetus does indeed have a right not to be aborted, then why attack me for simply believing the same thing as you, but holding to an earlier point of development? A far better and more logical discussion would be at what point the fetus has rights, and why.

KSig RC

06-09-2009, 10:24 AM

You are reacting emotionally, not logically. My logic is not WAY off - your understanding is.( For handy reference - http://www.logicalfallacies.info/)

This is ironic, because . . .

Once more - the argument that "It is my body - society has no right to tell me what to do with it" is predicated on the belief that it is only a woman's body being discussed. It is not - there is another being in the discussion. If being "dependant"( sic) meant the baby had no rights at all, we would not have the federal law which does in fact give the unborn some limited rights.

. . . this is basically a series of logical fallacies - a definite appeal to authority, at least one false dilemma, and a probable ad hominem using (sic) where completely unnecessary.

The fundamental question which has to be grappled with is at what point does the right of a fetus to continue to grow and develop override the right of a mother to have control (i.e. abort the fetus) over her body. Addressing THAT question eliminates a great deal of the emotional rhetoric, and makes for a logical discussion of what path we as a society should take.

This is almost certainly not the fundamental question - this is because the "right of a fetus to grow and develop" is inordinately presumptive. Actually, the fundamental question is much closer to "what has rights?" or "at what point does a 'fetus' constitute a 'person' in a legal sense?"

If you don't believe in unlimited abortion, and thus believe that at some point the fetus does indeed have a right not to be aborted, then why attack me for simply believing the same thing as you, but holding to an earlier point of development? A far better and more logical discussion would be at what point the fetus has rights, and why.

Even setting hyperbole aside, this point is much more emotional than logical. You don't "believe" the same thing - the difference is very much based upon the point you choose, it's not like you can just slide the scale all willy-nilly and claim you're on the same boat as everyone else.

Right now, it's brackishly clear that a fetus has rights at the point of viability. The AMA has said somewhere in 23-24 weeks is the point of viability - thus, abortion is restricted at that point. You obviously feel this protection should begin earlier - can you give me one good legal reason that does not rely on any personal spiritual or religious views?

DrPhil

06-09-2009, 10:41 AM

This is ironic, because . . .

. . . this is basically a series of logical fallacies - a definite appeal to authority, at least one false dilemma, and a probable ad hominem using (sic) where completely unnecessary.

This is almost certainly not the fundamental question - this is because the "right of a fetus to grow and develop" is inordinately presumptive. Actually, the fundamental question is much closer to "what has rights?" or "at what point does a 'fetus' constitute a 'person' in a legal sense?"

Even setting hyperbole aside, this point is much more emotional than logical. You don't "believe" the same thing - the difference is very much based upon the point you choose, it's not like you can just slide the scale all willy-nilly and claim you're on the same boat as everyone else.

Right now, it's brackishly clear that a fetus has rights at the point of viability. The AMA has said somewhere in 23-24 weeks is the point of viability - thus, abortion is restricted at that point. You obviously feel this protection should begin earlier - can you give me one good legal reason that does not rely on any personal spiritual or religious views?

QFC

(Quoted For Co-sign-worthiness)

starang21

06-09-2009, 11:17 AM

Never did I say anything about the rate of "pepple"(sic) getting abortions nor did I equate abortions to tattoos. I used tattoos as an example of something you could do to your body which would not impact anyone else. Let me point out that society does in fact tell you what you can do with your body all the time. You cannot get a tattoo before a certain age, you cannot take certain drugs without a doctor's prescription, you cannot drive if you have ingested a certain amount of alcohol, you cannot chose to take illegal drugs, and there are even laws against suicide. So, as a society we have decided that there are some things you cannot do to your body.

You are reacting emotionally, not logically. My logic is not WAY off - your understanding is.( For handy reference - http://www.logicalfallacies.info/)

Once more - the argument that "It is my body - society has no right to tell me what to do with it" is predicated on the belief that it is only a woman's body being discussed. It is not - there is another being in the discussion. If being "dependant"( sic) meant the baby had no rights at all, we would not have the federal law which does in fact give the unborn some limited rights.

The fundamental question which has to be grappled with is at what point does the right of a fetus to continue to grow and develop override the right of a mother to have control (i.e. abort the fetus) over her body. Addressing THAT question eliminates a great deal of the emotional rhetoric, and makes for a logical discussion of what path we as a society should take.

Do you believe in unlimited abortion; basically it's okay until the baby's head is crowning? Probably not - although I guess those people are out there. If not, then it's like the joke:
Man - "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
Woman - "For a million dollars? Why, yes!"
Man - "Would you sleep with me for a six pack?"
Woman - "What kind of woman do you think I am?"
Man - "We've already established that. Now we are just quibbling over price."

If you don't believe in unlimited abortion, and thus believe that at some point the fetus does indeed have a right not to be aborted, then why attack me for simply believing the same thing as you, but holding to an earlier point of development? A far better and more logical discussion would be at what point the fetus has rights, and why.

you're still comparing the two. it's an incorrect and silly example because the underlying circumstances and reasons for either one are completely different. again, your logic is way off. people aren't getting abortions at the same rate or reasons as tattoos or speeding. this comparison is about as valid as tax evasion and jay walking.

it IS a woman's body at the forefront. without the woman's body, that fetus is dead. the text book definition of that is that the fetus is a parasite. it needs another being to live and grow.

The AMA has said somewhere in 23-24 weeks is the point of viability - thus, abortion is restricted at that point.

sounds pretty good to me.

SWTXBelle

06-09-2009, 01:52 PM

This is ironic, because . . .

. . . this is basically a series of logical fallacies - a definite appeal to authority, at least one false dilemma, and a probable ad hominem using (sic) where completely unnecessary.

Nope. The appeal to authority is not a fallacy, because we are discussing the legal right to abortion, so appealing to federal law is not the same as appealing to the Bible, which would indeed qualify as a fallacious appeal to authority. The false dilemma is only false if you accept the idea that throughout the 40 weeks of pregnancy there is only one life - the mother's - in question. To do that would be begging the question. As you know, (sic) is used when the writer does not wish to have a mistake in a quote mistaken for one of his/her own. That is how I used it - how, pray tell, should (sic) be used? An ad hominem attack would be my attacking the poster instead of her ideas, which I don't do. QED

This is almost certainly not the fundamental question - this is because the "right of a fetus to grow and develop" is inordinately presumptive. Actually, the fundamental question is much closer to "what has rights?" or "at what point does a 'fetus' constitute a 'person' in a legal sense?"

The difference between the "right of a fetus to grow and develop" and "at what point does a 'fetus" constitute a 'person' in a legal sense" is so minor that I don't mind at all changing the question to that - so, at what point DO you think a 'fetus" constitutes a 'person" in a legal sense?

Even setting hyperbole aside, this point is much more emotional than logical. You don't "believe" the same thing - the difference is very much based upon the point you choose, it's not like you can just slide the scale all willy-nilly and claim you're on the same boat as everyone else.

Right now, it's brackishly clear that a fetus has rights at the point of viability. The AMA has said somewhere in 23-24 weeks is the point of viability - thus, abortion is restricted at that point. You obviously feel this protection should begin earlier - can you give me one good legal reason that does not rely on any personal spiritual or religious views?

I was careful to say that IF you believe there is a limit to abortion on demand THEREFORE you believe that there is a point at which the fetus is a person. If that is the case, then we ARE indeed on the same boat - we believe that there is a point before birth at which the fetus is a person with rights. I believe it is quite obvious that I'm not worried about being alone in my beliefs - but IF the above syllogism is true, then we do have at least some minor point of agreement from which we can have a productive discussion. If you don't believe that there is no point at which the fetus has rights, then you are correct. We have no beliefs in common. It is the failure of both sides to recognize possible areas of agreement that causes so much in the way of over-blown hyperbole, which does nothing to help anyone.

The legal reason? Because a fetus can never be anything but human. It cannot be a tree, or a puppy, or anything other than a human. Society believes that humans have certain rights - as Jefferson stated, life is one of those. If there is any question as to whether or not a human life is in jeopardy, I believe that the law should err on the side of conservation.

SWTXBelle

06-09-2009, 02:01 PM

Once more into the breech -

you're still comparing the two. it's an incorrect and silly example because the underlying circumstances and reasons for either one are completely different. again, your logic is way off. people aren't getting abortions at the same rate or reasons as tattoos or speeding. this comparison is about as valid as tax evasion and jay walking.

Once more - I am contrasting the two. You were the one who phrased it in terms of "doing" something to a woman's body. The CONTRAST is that when a woman decides to get a boob job, she is indeed doing something to her body which does not affect anyone else. When she choses to have an abortion, then she is "doing" something which DOES have an impact on another body. Please do point to where I said anything about the rate or reasons for tattoos or abortion. I didn't - so quit with the red herrings.

it IS a woman's body at the forefront. without the woman's body, that fetus is dead. the text book definition of that is that the fetus is a parasite. it needs another being to live and grow.

There is a difference between arguing that "a woman's body is at the forefront" and that a woman's choice always outweighs any possible rights of the fetus. A parasite? Really? Wow.

sounds pretty good to me.

So you DO believe that the right to abortion should only extend until the point of viability - 24 weeks on? Again, that's a starting point for rational discussion.

MysticCat

06-09-2009, 02:04 PM

The legal reason? Because a fetus can never be anything but human. It cannot be a tree, or a puppy, or anything other than a human. Society believes that humans have certain rights - as Jefferson stated, life is one of those. If there is any question as to whether or not a human life is in jeopardy, I believe that the law should err on the side of conservation.This is where I think your logic falls apart. Not everyone would agree with the presumption that "a fetus can never be anything but a human." Some would say it is a potential human, but until viability/birth/some other identifiable time, it is not yet a human. That's what KSig RC was getting at when he said: "Actually, the fundamental question is much closer to "what has rights?" or "at what point does a 'fetus' constitute a 'person' in a legal sense?"

DrPhil

06-09-2009, 02:09 PM

I believe starang21 agrees with the restriction of abortion at the 23-24 week mark.

Isn't the political term for late term abortions "partial birth abortion?" That's when the baby is aborted 4 months and beyond; and many consider this to be inappropriate because the baby is viable or almost viable. I only condone 4 month and beyond abortions if the mother and/or baby's lives are in danger.

DrPhil

06-09-2009, 02:11 PM

Again, that's a starting point for rational discussion.

This is why this is a very strange discourse.

SWTXBelle

06-09-2009, 02:12 PM

This is where I think your logic falls apart. Not everyone would agree with the presumption that "a fetus can never be anything but a human." Some would say it is a potential human, but until viability/birth/some other identifiable time, it is not yet a human. That's what KSig RC was getting at when he said: "Actually, the fundamental question is much closer to "what has rights?" or "at what point does a 'fetus' constitute a 'person' in a legal sense?"

Don't you think "falls apart" is a bit harsh? A potential human - is still human, is it not? I will agree that once you say it is not a human from conception it gets rather murky. If a fetus can indeed be something other than human, what exactly is it? I guess you can draw a fine line between potential human and human - but it's a really fine one. To me, it is more rational ( I hesitate to say logical) to say it is human all along than to decide on some arbitrary point at which it is human - but I am sincere when I say I'm happy to hear a more rational discussion of the point from those who disagree.

Rather than putting all this energy into piling on me, (not that it hasn't been fun), how about the issue of why you think the Gallup poll results came out the way they did? Obviously, the results are far different here on our beloved GC. Also, is the point moot because fewer doctors are being trained in abortions, and there is less access to abortion in many parts of the country than there was 20 years ago? One point brought up with Tiller's murder was that it would have a major impact on the ability for women to have late term abortions.

SWTXBelle

06-09-2009, 02:13 PM

DrPhil

06-09-2009, 02:18 PM

Don't you think "falls apart" is a bit harsh?A potential human - is still human, is it not? I will agree that once you say it is not a human from conception it gets rather murky. If a fetus can indeed be something other than human, what exactly is it? I guess you can draw a fine line between potential human and human - but it's a really fine one.

It's only as harsh as telling someone they are going based on emotion and not logic and reasoning.

We've already discussed what a "potential human" can become.

Rather than putting all this energy into piling on me, (not that it hasn't been fun), how about the issue of why you think the Gallup poll results came out the way they did? Also, is the point moot because fewer doctors are being trained in abortions, and there is less access to abortion in many parts of the country than there was 20 years ago? One point brought up with Tiller's murder was that it would have a major impact on the ability for women to have late term abortions.

This is funny.

SWTXBelle

06-09-2009, 02:21 PM

This is why this is a very strange discourse.

Strange? Eh. Maybe. But too often everything is painted in terms of black and white that leave no room for the grey areas - and that's where I want to start. Not "NO ABORTIONS EVER!", nor "ABORTIONS WHENEVER!" but at "This is the point beyond which we can agree to no abortion on demand." (If we introduce the whole life of the mother/rape/incest thing, we'll derail again). Having established a point of agreement, then it's easier (I would hope) to work on things like helping each group work towards eliminating much of the NEED for abortion - something I hope everyone would get behind and support.

eta - and I'm missing the humor in referencing the original point of the thread, and whether or not there is a de facto limitation of abortion access. Ha ha? I've also somehow missed what it is that a fetus/potential human can become other than a human.

Pearlove

06-09-2009, 02:26 PM

TWICE you didn't bother to read the insert in your birth control and/or in the antibiotics you were given in order to know any drug interactions? TWICE in one year (when you were 17)? Really? And you are a biology major?
* I read the label both times, no mention was made. As a biology major and med school attendee, I always read the label very carefully. Also, I never said it was twice in one year, the first time I was 17.

"For the record, you could have both gone to whatever college you wanted (maybe not when you had hoped to, but you could have) and joined a sorority had you chosen to give the babies up for adoption. One of my chapter sisters did just that - and one consideration in giving her a bid was the character she showed as a scared 17 year old."
I would not have been able to get into my choice college, as I would not have been able to finish high school, my high school does not allow for pregnant teens to attend. I would have had to wait and get my GRE. Also, to imply that I have less character than the girl who chose to keep her baby highlights your ignorance of this issue. This isn't an issue of character, I am fimly pro-choice and believe that my decision shows as much 'character as anyone else'.

"Defining being human as having " reached the point of consciousness, or found the ability to feel pain" means that there are a great many people in comas you don't regard as human - and what of those who are born with the rare inability to register pain? Are they not human? "
They have consciousness. That is what makes us human, I'm sorry if I may have confused you but the feeling pain part was a side note.

As to improving the lives of those around me - that's exactly what I do by supporting agencies that provide support for scared 17 year olds. I've referenced the Edna Gladney Center above. Women there can attend high school AND college, have counseling and medical care, and are able to both improve their lives and give life to their babies, and those who give them up for adoption contribute to improving the lives of infertile couples.

eta - I want to be clear that while I think you made an unfortunate choice (well, two), I am sympathetic to the plight of ANY woman who finds herself in that situation. I have 4 children - 3 of whom were "unplanned". I know what it is to feel the panic and fear of having your life turned upside down. Baby #2 came in the midst of our unemployment - no insurance, no real income - yikes! Baby #4 came a mere 15 months after baby #3 - and I was 38 at the time. But out of fear and panic can come opportunity, and often the things we fear most turn out to be blessings in disguise.
That's great that you actively support those around you, and I'm glad that you are happy with your decision. However, that does not give you the right to tell me that my decision was not right for me.

SWTXBelle

06-09-2009, 02:30 PM

Oh drat. I didn't get the memo about losing the right to free speech. I really should try and make those constitutional meetings . . .

DrPhil

06-09-2009, 02:37 PM

Strange? Eh. Maybe. But too often everything is painted in terms of black and white that leave no room for the grey areas - and that's where I want to start. Not "NO ABORTIONS EVER!", nor "ABORTIONS WHENEVER!" but at "This is the point beyond which we can agree to no abortion on demand." (If we introduce the whole life of the mother/rape/incest thing, we'll derail again). Having established a point of agreement, then it's easier (I would hope) to work on things like helping each group work towards eliminating much of the NEED for abortion - something I hope everyone would get behind and support.

This discussion is circular now.

While some people believe in a NEVER and a WHENEVER with no exceptions, most people realize that life is much more complex than that. ETA: Even if they won't admit it because they want to present themselves in a particular light.

eta - and I'm missing the humor in referencing the original point of the thread, and whether or not there is a de facto limitation of abortion access. Ha ha? I've also somehow missed what it is that a fetus/potential human can become other than a human.

I find your attempts to direct the discussion funny.

Yeah, it wasn't fetus, but we discussed what happens if the embryo does not develop into a fetus. Is an embryo also a potential human? When does potential human begin?

Those are rhetoricals.

DrPhil

06-09-2009, 02:39 PM

As I said when this thread first began, it was a peaceful discourse because it was a surface level discourse about a poll. The tone changed when depth was added to the discourse.

KSigkid

06-09-2009, 02:45 PM

Rather than putting all this energy into piling on me, (not that it hasn't been fun),

Disagreeing does not equal piling on - you've staked out a position on what you think is rational/logical, especially in regards with when a fetus becomes a human, and people are disagreeing with portions of that argument.

That's a big part of the legal argument, and a big part of the various court opinions (and personal opinions, for that matter) that have shaped the issue. Is the fetus a person at x number of weeks? If so, does that mean that the mother should have a right to abort after that time? Where do the state's interests come in? Those are all questions that, at least in part, go back to the issue of the fetus/human distinction.

As I said when this thread first began, it was a peaceful discourse because it was a surface level discourse about a poll. The tone changed when depth was added to the discourse.

And when people start acting like their backgrounds (legal, medical, logical, etc.) give them an intellectual "leg up" on everyone else in the discussion. It's an issue that touches so many different types of backgrounds that it can be easy for someone to claim an expertise that gives them more insight into the issue. At the end of the day, though, a person's expertise just gives perspective on one piece of the discussion.

I think AOIIAlum and MC went about it in a correct ways - she's a doctor (IIRC) and he's an attorney, and they could honestly have tried to own us all in this discussion. But, they gave their views, and didn't try to force their own experiences or viewpoints on anyone.

MysticCat

06-09-2009, 02:49 PM

Don't you think "falls apart" is a bit harsh?If we're talking religious beliefs, quite possibly. If we're talking in term of legal definitions, no.

A potential human - is still human, is it not? Again, from a legal standpoint I would have to say no; otherwise the word "potential" is surplusage It is a potential human, meaning it is capable of becoming human, but is not yet human.

I will agree that once you say it is not a human from conception it gets rather murky. If a fetus can indeed be something other than human, what exactly is it?As I understand it, the Talmud would say it is an appendage of the mother and a being of "doubtful viability."
I guess you can draw a fine line between potential human and human - but it's a really fine one. To me, it is more rational ( I hesitate to say logical) to say it is human all along than to decide on some arbitrary point at which it is human - but I am sincere when I say I'm happy to hear a more rational discussion of the point from those who disagree.I think that what others have been saying is not that they disagree necessarily, but that given the fact that various religious or ethical perspectives can disagree on this (one traditional Hindu opinion is that a fetus becomes a person at 3 months), the law must rely on neutral/legal definitions of human. The question, then, is how is such a neutral principle to be decided on without appeal to religious or ethical authority. Many here have essentially expressed the opinion that viability provides that neutral principle. Why do you think it's more "rational" to say earlier? Simply saying "the fetus is a human" doesn't work -- the traditional Hindu view cited above would disagree, as, I think, would Exodus 21:22-23 and the Talmud. (Not that I mean to suggest that the Talmud supports abortion except in limited circumstances. It does not, but the position of traditional Judaism is not, as I understand it, based on the proposition that the fetus is a person prior to birth.)

ETA: Yes, I know I cited religious rather than neutral authority. I did so on purpose, because the reality is it is very hard to set one aside and focus on the other.

Rather than putting all this energy into piling on me, (not that it hasn't been fun),I thought we were discussing legal understandings, which is what you wanted, not piling on. ;)

how about the issue of why you think the Gallup poll results came out the way they did?I have. Twice.

SWTXBelle

06-09-2009, 02:50 PM

It's not recognizing my message, so here goes -

This discussion is circular now.

While some people believe in a NEVER and a WHENEVER with no exceptions, most people realize that life is much more complex than that.
That was my point, which I've made several times, to no avail. YES of course it is - and that's why trying to paint me into a corner with NEVER, or assuming that those who consider themselves pro-choice are in another corner with WHENEVER is counter productive.

I find your attempts to direct the discussion funny. As the op, I felt I had a right to try and get back to something closer to the original purpose of the thread. I realize there is a certain irony to my doing so due to the fact that the derailing came about to a certain extent because I clarified and tried to defend my beliefs when asked and/or challenged. I certainly didn't intend to become the pro-life poster child. I responded because I hate the fact that often the two most extreme sides are the ones which get media attention, and that as someone who is "pro-life" but not an extremist I am sometimes the only one to explain why the many who think like I do have the opinions we do. Because I was once "pro-choice", I think I am more sympathetic to that whole belief system than some, and can recognize that they are usually not absolutists, but instead are on a spectrum of support for legal abortion. (A point I have tried but fear I have failed to make.)

But I'm glad to have amused you.

Yeah, it wasn't fetus, but we discussed what happens if the embryo does not develop into a fetus. Is an embryo also a potential human? When does potential human begin?

Those are rhetoricals.

eta - just saw your response, MC. Yes, you have - sorry not to have recognized that.:)
And KSig - "piling on" was used as a bit of hyperbole- see, I need that tongue in cheek smiley again!

Munchkin03

06-09-2009, 02:56 PM

I believe "partial birth" is a particular procedure used for late term abortions, but that there are other methods (depending on how late we are talking).

Even the use of the term "partial-birth" is a term created for political purposes and doesn't reflect what happens medically; in fact, the term has been used to describe several types of late-term abortion.

SWTXBelle

06-09-2009, 03:04 PM

SydneyK

06-09-2009, 03:18 PM

how about the issue of why you think the Gallup poll results came out the way they did?

I haven't speculated on why the Gallup poll results came out the way they did because it would be just that - speculation.

Maybe it came out that way because the poll went from Thursday through Sunday, and the people polled had just been to church Wednesday night or Sunday morning when they received the call.

Maybe people who participated in tho poll had someone else in the room and, for fear of starting an argument with a loved one, said "Pro-life" instead of "pro-choice."

Maybe it came out the way it did because, for the first time in eight years, there is now a pro-choice POTUS, and pro-lifers feel the need to be more vocal than they had before.

Maybe it's because they had tacos for dinner.

Maybe it's just because they thought it'd be fun to press '1' for everything.

Who knows. :confused:

starang21

06-09-2009, 03:19 PM

Once more into the breech -

So you DO believe that the right to abortion should only extend until the point of viability - 24 weeks on? Again, that's a starting point for rational discussion.

it is really a parasite until it's born. the fetus cannot live without the mother and that is the text book definition of what a parasite is. yes, the woman's rights will and should outweigh to a degree those of that which is living off of her.

i'll err on the side of the medical profession. 24 weeks sounds good to me.

starang21

06-09-2009, 03:25 PM

Okay, "pro-choicers" - are you at all concerned that this shift in thinking (the fact that many more label themselves "pro-life" than in the past) will result in a de facto limitation of access to abortion? If so, what if anything do you think should be done?

no. because for the last 10 years, the majority of this "poll" has been pro-choice. this could be a valid "shift" or it could be an aberration and/or faulty sample. i wouldn't get excited over the results of one poll. and no, i wouldn't worry about it even if it was a valid shift, because i'd prefer the woman i'm dealing with to not have an abortion, anyway.

AOII Angel

06-09-2009, 03:25 PM

Second and Third trimester abortions should be allowed ONLY for severe birth defects (completely up to patient/doctor discretion, so yes, if a woman wants to abort her Down Syndrome fetus, that is her choice!), non-viability of the fetus, rape or incest victims and severe risk to the mother's life, up to 27 weeks.
-Neonatologist can routinely save 27 week premies. The results at this point for any fetus younger than that age are so variable across the country that it is NONVIABLE in many areas. This week should change as our technology changes.
-Many severe defects are only fully evaluated beyond the point where the fetus is still first trimester.
-The life of the mother should ALWAYS come first. If the pregnancy is beyond 27 weeks, then labor should be induced rather than abortion performed to save the life of the mother.

For most unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, I would agree with this statement. In the case of pregnancies where birth defects aren't detected until the second or third trimester, however, I can't really blame the woman for not "getting it together" enough to have had an abortion earlier.

It's easy, in conversations like this, to forget that it isn't just unwed young women who are having abortions. (General observation - not directed at you, AOII Angel.)

I think you missed the part of my post that I quoted above, Sydney K.

starang21

06-09-2009, 03:30 PM

A potential human - is still human, is it not? If a fetus can indeed be something other than human, what exactly is it? I guess you can draw a fine line between potential human and human - but it's a really fine one. To me, it is more rational ( I hesitate to say logical) to say it is human all along than to decide on some arbitrary point at which it is human - but I am sincere when I say I'm happy to hear a more rational discussion of the point from those who disagree.

is a seed a tree? no. a fetus is not a human. it's a parasite. a potential human is something that is not yet human and thus not human.

KSig RC

06-09-2009, 03:40 PM

Please learn how to quote properly; embeddding your responses is a massive pain in the ass to work with. Thanks!

Nope. The appeal to authority is not a fallacy, because we are discussing the legal right to abortion, so appealing to federal law is not the same as appealing to the Bible, which would indeed qualify as a fallacious appeal to authority. The false dilemma is only false if you accept the idea that throughout the 40 weeks of pregnancy there is only one life - the mother's - in question. To do that would be begging the question. As you know, (sic) is used when the writer does not wish to have a mistake in a quote mistaken for one of his/her own. That is how I used it - how, pray tell, should (sic) be used? An ad hominem attack would be my attacking the poster instead of her ideas, which I don't do. QED

This is exactly the OPPOSITE of QED. Wow.

OK - that's not at all how an appeal to authority works. You are appealing to authority by declaring an incorrect predicate for a "womens' rights" argument, then twisting the law into the argument even though it really doesn't address the argument in the slightest. You are appealing to authority by saying that a fetus must deserve rights because there is currently a Federal law on the books. This is not at all true, and even if we take it at face value, the causation connection should (at the least) run in the opposite direction - and, indeed, it sets up your false dilemma: the connection between 'dependent' and 'has rights' is fallacious, and the law itself makes distinctions and indicates multiple shades of gray. You are conflating issues that are not specifically or logically connected, then whitewashing it by saying "but we're talking about the law!" I can go into more detail if you'd like, but you are certainly going beyond the actual authority of Federal laws when making your claims, and they are not objectively true as a result.

You were (technically) using (sic) properly; you were, however, highlighting his typos, likely in an effort to discredit him as a result, which is a form of ad hominem attack. Attack the ideas, not the spelling - for real.

The difference between the "right of a fetus to grow and develop" and "at what point does a 'fetus" constitute a 'person' in a legal sense" is so minor that I don't mind at all changing the question to that - so, at what point DO you think a 'fetus" constitutes a 'person" in a legal sense?

It's not minor at all - you are improperly defining terms to suit your argument, and narrowing the focus makes the terminology (and thus discussion) less accurate.

I was careful to say that IF you believe there is a limit to abortion on demand THEREFORE you believe that there is a point at which the fetus is a person.

You did not say this. You should have.

The legal reason? Because a fetus can never be anything but human.

This is not specifically true. An egg is not a chicken. A tadpole is not a frog. A fetus becomes a human being at a certain point - that's the entire discussion.

If there is any question as to whether or not a human life is in jeopardy, I believe that the law should err on the side of conservation.

That's fine - it's just not a sound basis for law, I don't think.

I'll expound on this for you - you want to err on the side of caution in the law? Fine - but caution cannot come at the risk of unnecessarily limiting the options and rights of the population at large without a compelling interest.

The compelling interest here, as far as I can see, is "saving lives" - which requires you to determine that a fetus is a "human life" before it is medically viable, in order to fit your views. Why would a non-viable fetus be considered a human life? The only definitions that would allow this (that I can think of) are religion-based, or spiritual - that it has a "soul" or some other imbued property from conception. Since that is a craptacular basis for law, you have to use the best-available allowed standard: viability.

Now, come up with a compelling reason to use your definition of "life" (with evidence to support it) and I'm more than willing to consider it.

AOII Angel

06-09-2009, 03:42 PM

I think the problem with the "human" or "potential human" debate is that people are using two definitions of what is "human." If you mean a "human" as in the species, then yes, a fetus is a human and can only become a human. If, however, you mean that a fetus is human because it has the traits one associates with "humanity," i.e. a more esoteric definition, then "potential human" is accurate. In the end, whether or not the fetus is part of the human species does not change the fact that it cannot survive outside the mother before the point of viability (and even then is just a parasite of a ventilator until 28-29 weeks.)

KSig RC

06-09-2009, 03:52 PM

Also, polling on this issue is notoriously shitty - in one classic survey, 54% of the population noted they were "pro-life" while 60% said they were against limiting first-trimester abortions. The lobbying terminology (the equally-douchey "pro-life" and "pro-choice") serve to confuse the issue, as well.

I wouldn't consider this at all a solid indicator of overall views, nor the population's leaning, nor would I even begin to consider it as a basis for current abortion policies.

DrPhil

06-09-2009, 03:54 PM

Even the use of the term "partial-birth" is a term created for political purposes and doesn't reflect what happens medically; in fact, the term has been used to describe several types of late-term abortion.

It is a "pro-life" term.

DrPhil

06-09-2009, 03:56 PM

Yes, yes...thanks for amusing me SWTX.

SWTXBelle

06-09-2009, 05:10 PM

Yes, yes...thanks for amusing me SWTX.

Oh, apparently it's my raison d'être - or so I've been told. :rolleyes:

SWTXBelle

06-09-2009, 06:02 PM

OK - that's not at all how an appeal to authority works.

You were (technically) using (sic) properly;

This is an appeal to authority from a rhetorical standpoint:http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.htm

Perhaps we are using two totally different definitions, which would explain the problems in communication. I teach rhetoric - so that's my basis for using the term. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

We were discussing the legal status of unaborted fetuses/babies/collection of cells - my point is that the federal government has already, through the passage of law, determined that there are SOME rights which an unborn fetus has. They are limited, they are still subject to interpretation, and they fall into the "grey" area you reference, but still - it's not a twisting of the idea of women's rights, or a begging of the question. The statement was made that the whatever-you-wish-to-call-the-potential human has no "rights", and I was addressing that. And, of course, just because something is legal doesn't mean it is the ultimate word on the matter - we'd hardly have the interest in the appointment of Supreme Court justices if that were the case.

A chicken egg is not a good analogy - it needs only warmth and occasional turning to become a full-fledged chicken. Although the tadpole makes for a better one, the tadpole is a living thing, right? It's not quite a full-fledged frog, but it's certainly alive, so I don't know that it is an analogy which you really wish to use. Kill a tadpole and you have undoubtly killed something. I think (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) that the argument for abortion on demand before viability is based on the idea that you are not "killing" a being seperate from the mother. Argument by analogy is always a little lacking, I think. The best analogy would be one using a mammal, and we hit the same wall - you regard viability as the determining factor for "mammalhood", and I still regard it as a mammal from the time of implantation.

Please note that I have not referenced a soul, or any religious belief in my discussion of my personal beliefs, although they form a part in my changing from pro-choice to pro-life. If you want a strictly medical take on my beliefs, I'd have to say that for me, if it has a heart beat, it is alive. If it is alive, it has to be SOMETHING; therefore, it must be determined what it is. AOIIAngel has correctly stated that the problem comes about when we use two different definitions for "human". For me, it is a human. Therefore, as a human, it has a right to live without anyone, not even the mother, taking away its life. I realize that this simply narrows it down the point of "humanhood" to about 6 weeks - before that, yes, as I've said, we've tread into far murkier ground.
As I've said, I believe that a pregnancy which will result in the loss of the life of the mother would be a valid excuse for abortion. I am still not happy at the idea of abortion at any time, but will admit that before there is a heartbeat it is much less clear-cut.

I've changed my mind once, and while I'm pretty sure I won't go back, I do have an honest and sincere interest in the thinking behind those who hold different views.

eta - and as an aside, I'd be perfectly happy to leave the subject up to the states to determine. But that a whole 'nother political discussion.

DrPhil

06-09-2009, 07:11 PM

texas*princess

06-09-2009, 08:45 PM

So is this supposed to be a discussion about the poll or what?

AOII Angel

06-09-2009, 08:49 PM

So is this supposed to be a discussion about the poll or what?

Ah we left that topic a long time ago! Then again, GC threads NEVER wander do they?!;)

KSigkid

06-10-2009, 09:20 AM

And, of course, just because something is legal doesn't mean it is the ultimate word on the matter - we'd hardly have the interest in the appointment of Supreme Court justices if that were the case.

I think this is a slightly different issue, and for a number of reasons, I don't think the abortion question has any place in the debate over a SCOTUS justice (despite the fact that it's one of the most talked about issues). But, again, that's a whole other issue.

texas*princess

06-10-2009, 12:36 PM

Ah we left that topic a long time ago! Then again, GC threads NEVER wander do they?!;)

:p Yea.. everyone is just talking in circles... and the whole abortion debate deal has been done many times over. I guess I just thought the whole point of this thread was about the Gallop poll, but alas, it is not

KSig RC

06-10-2009, 12:51 PM

A chicken egg is not a good analogy - it needs only warmth and occasional turning to become a full-fledged chicken. Although the tadpole makes for a better one, the tadpole is a living thing, right? It's not quite a full-fledged frog, but it's certainly alive, so I don't know that it is an analogy which you really wish to use. Kill a tadpole and you have undoubtly killed something. I think (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) that the argument for abortion on demand before viability is based on the idea that you are not "killing" a being seperate from the mother. Argument by analogy is always a little lacking, I think. The best analogy would be one using a mammal, and we hit the same wall - you regard viability as the determining factor for "mammalhood", and I still regard it as a mammal from the time of implantation.

You are taking the analogy too far.

Is killing a tadpole, frog, etc. the same thing, from a legal standpoint, the same as killing a person? You're taking the comparison too far - in fact, that's kind of a running theme in this discussion to date. I'm not using "killing" as part of the analogy at all - the argument, put more simply, is this:

1. You introduced "potential human" as an analog for "actual human"
2. You claim that a fetus is a "potential" human, thus it is a "human"
3. There are multiple examples of transformations that help to illustrate that a "potential" human is not the same as a "human".

Don't read anything more into it.

Besides this, you haven't at all addressed the key issue here, although you touch on it here:

Please note that I have not referenced a soul, or any religious belief in my discussion of my personal beliefs, although they form a part in my changing from pro-choice to pro-life.

I'm not 'accusing' you of doing this, I'm simply saying that it is basically implicit in using any definition other than medical viability (yes, even using your "heartbeat" standard below).

If you want a strictly medical take on my beliefs, I'd have to say that for me, if it has a heart beat, it is alive. If it is alive, it has to be SOMETHING; therefore, it must be determined what it is. AOIIAngel has correctly stated that the problem comes about when we use two different definitions for "human". For me, it is a human. Therefore, as a human, it has a right to live without anyone, not even the mother, taking away its life. I realize that this simply narrows it down the point of "humanhood" to about 6 weeks - before that, yes, as I've said, we've tread into far murkier ground.
As I've said, I believe that a pregnancy which will result in the loss of the life of the mother would be a valid excuse for abortion. I am still not happy at the idea of abortion at any time, but will admit that before there is a heartbeat it is much less clear-cut.

OK - you've selected an incredibly arbitrary standard, but that's no different than any other completely arbitrary standard (including medical viability). I can definitely respect the choice, even if I completely disagree with it ("It has a heartbeat! People have heartbeats! It's a person!" seems very loose to me - almost reductive - but I don't really have an issue with it if that's what you want to use).

That's one of the key problems with any real substantive abortion discussion, and that's the impasse.