Abortion Laws: Pro Life or Pro Choice(v2)?

So our arguments are emotional pandering with no basis in reality?

And where the hell does "ilk" come from?

What did I do to deserve that?

 

Simple, you're pro-life, therefore, your ilk (pro-lifers). It's a group, nothing negative I assure you. Would you disagree and say that you're not pro-life? Vewy vewy intwesting.


So our arguments are emotional pandering with no basis in reality?

Pro-lifers contend that life starts at conception, no one has proof of this either way. Suggesting that we should listen to pro-lifers because this is "fact" is silly.

You wish to make abortion illegal, thus causing an increase of illegal abortion. Pro-lifers say this would not be the case, but I ask, what would you do instead? Teach kids about sex in high school instead of giving them the sugar-coated lesson? How about passing out condoms, or giving them to those who ask? Would pro-lifers be opposed to this? If so, then where's the reality of your side of the issue come in?


And yes, I'm well aware of the, "don't tell anyone what they believe," but in this case, this is a fairly common fact, therefore, the rule is void. <~~My mod claus.

 

I would be perfectly willing to have high-schools pass out condoms if abortion were made illegal.

 

Neither, I'm just tired of being nice. And I'm also tired of sugar-coating my opinions for fear of retribution.

I took my own pledge tonight. I'd post it, but I'm afraid it's not sweet enough for the senate floor.

 

When did this debate become unlocked? hehe


I hope that some of you realize that just because someone may be pro-life does not necessarily mean that they are a christian fundamentalist with all right-wing views about everything morally subjective. That slant would be ignorant at best and just plain stupid at worst.

This is the last comment I am going to make on these boards, which I wanted to make before it got locked but c'est la vie.


To those women out there who consider motherhood "slavery" and never ever want to have children but still want to have sex. (I don't blame them on still wanting to have sex) Then I say this: Just sterilize yourself. Then you will never have to make the 'choice' of whether or not you want to keep your baby, abort it, or give it up for adoption.

I had three kids. I do not want more. Gee, what did I do? I had a tubal ligation. No more kids for me and consequence free sex with my husband for the rest of my life. Can't get any better than that.

That is where our choice lies as women. Our choice lies in our ability to produce children. We can shut that ability off if we never want children and/or don't want any more. The choice ceases to exist, however (and in my opinion) when another life is created. Then you must deal with the consequences of your actions.

 

The back alley abortion is the sad truth that you and your ilk would have come true if you took away abortions. And yes, it's emotional pandering as well, but with a basis in reality.

Are you suggesting that the anti-abortion "emotional pandering" that claims a fetus might actually be a human life has no basis in reality?


Pro-lifers contend that life starts at conception, no one has proof of this either way. Suggesting that we should listen to pro-lifers because this is "fact" is silly.

First of all, not all pro-lifers stick to conception as the starting point. And it's not like anyone on the pro-choice side has given us the criteria they would require for "proof" that a life exists.

I agree that it is silly to insist you believe a certain viewpoint "because we say so" or "because God says so." But so is insisting that the pro-choice side is right without even considering the pro-life arguments. Both sides use those sorts of tactics; one uses the mantra of "life" and the other of "choice," often at the expense of any real debate.


You wish to make abortion illegal, thus causing an increase of illegal abortion.

Well, that wouldn't be the intent of the ban, but it is certainly one of the possible results. That doesn't necessarily mean that abortion should remain legal, however, because a concern for human rights should trump the convenience of letting people do whatever they want.


Pro-lifers say this would not be the case, but I ask, what would you do instead? Teach kids about sex in high school instead of giving them the sugar-coated lesson?

Definitely. Give them the facts. And make sure they've learned enough in their math classes to understand the statistics - a 10% chance that a birth control method will fail means it's not foolproof!


How about passing out condoms, or giving them to those who ask? Would pro-lifers be opposed to this? If so, then where's the reality of your side of the issue come in?

Many pro-lifers would be opposed to passing out condoms in schools - some because they don't want the kids to have sex at all, but others because they feel it would be encouraging the kids to have sex when the school should probably remain neutral. Not only that, you may be giving them a false sense of security, since with typical usage a condom has a significant failure rate. Add to that the high likelihood that many of the free condoms would wind up being used in practical jokes (hidden in lockers, backpacks, teachers' desks), and it's just not worth it. Instead, the school should probably provide the students information on clinics where they can discuss birth control with a physician in private. They can't exactly hand out the pill to girls in school, so this is probably the next best thing.

 

To those women out there who consider motherhood "slavery" and never ever want to have children but still want to have sex. (I don't blame them on still wanting to have sex) Then I say this: Just sterilize yourself. Then you will never have to make the 'choice' of whether or not you want to keep your baby, abort it, or give it up for adoption.

And to those women who eagerly anticipate motherhood, just not right now?

Runecaster,

You sound just as guilty as generalizing about the sort of people who are pro-choice as you accuse them of being about pro-lifers. Where are the denizens of women in this thread claiming motherhood is slavery?

Our choices as women extend into pregancy. That's the law. You said in a previous post that you used to be pro-life, but that having children changed your mind. I respect your feelings on this absolutely. And I feel just as strongly that all women have the right to reach that conclusion on their own. Many, many years spent working in OBGYN convinced me that this is not an issue anyone can decide for anyone else.

Additionally, childless women who ask for tubal ligations are typically strongly dissuaded by their physicians. Even if they persist in wanting it, they are typically required to go for counseling first. Considering that many women in today's society experience what we might call a "delayed maternal extinct"; a twenty-five year old asking to be sterilized may very well not be capable of understanding the future ramifications. It's potentially devestating. Let me assure you, very very few ligations are done on women in their twenties. We had only 1 young patient (a 26 year old), who ever went through with it.

For the record, I am pro-life for myself. And I've been with my husband for eight years, without children, by choice. Yeah - responsible birth works.

 

Our choices as women extend into pregancy. That's the law.

I don't think anyone's disputing it. The question is whether the law is right.


And I feel just as strongly that all women have the right to reach that conclusion on their own. Many, many years spent working in OBGYN convinced me that this is not an issue anyone can decide for anyone else.

Should I not be able to decide for another women whether or not she can drown her children in the bathtub?

As much compassion as you may feel for a pregnant woman in a difficult situation, if the fetus can be considered as much a human life as a newborn, the law must be concerned for its wellbeing as well.


And I've been with my husband for eight years, without children, by choice. Yeah - responsible birth works.

Which is precisely why sexual education programs should teach students what qualifies as "responsible" birth control and what doesn't. There's too much misinformation out there among teenagers (and probably even adults) about how to keep yourself protected.

 

The issue is Womberty that even informing young people isn't going to prevent pregnancies.

Australia has (in public and most private schools) compulsory sex education. They go through everything in pretty solid detail so that you know exactly what the consequences are. However, teen pregnancy is still a huge problem in Australia (not as big as in America, but still). I've see well educated girls say the stupidest things "I'm a virgin and my period is late...am I pregnant?"

Also, tubal ligations (like sterilising men) can heal/fix themselves. So it isn't the fool proof decision that some people make it out to be.

Kithera

 

even informing young people isn't going to prevent pregnancies.

If you've been fully informed of the risks of having unprotected sex and decide to engage in it anyway, am I supposed to feel sorry for you if you get pregnant as a result? Am I supposed to believe that it's something that couldn't have been helped, and feel that the compassionate thing to do is offer a way out?


I've see well educated girls say the stupidest things "I'm a virgin and my period is late...am I pregnant?"

So then is there something wrong with the way sex ed it taught, if the students can't at least figure out how a pregnancy is caused?


Also, tubal ligations (like sterilising men) can heal/fix themselves. So it isn't the fool proof decision that some people make it out to be.

Even worse, it can result in tubal pregnancies, which pose serious risks to the mother. (It is my understanding that these cannot be carried to term, and it would probably require a surgical abortion.)

 

The partial birth abortion ban has passed both houses and now heads to the President for signing into law. It will be challenged in court of course, but I think the original Roe decision agrees with not allowing (except in emergency circumstances) third trimester abortions to take place.

 

I agree w/DM on the concept of a ban, but the ban needs a health exception.

An ABCnews.com poll released today shows that 60% of americans favor banning the procedure, a shockingly low number IMHO, given the rhetoric of those like Rick Santorum, who practically accused all women who have this procedure of simply "wanting to get rid of their babies and not be pregnant any more". It's asinine comments like that (which are so clearly designed to stir emotions only and are not based on any solid fact; there is strong evidence to the contrary, even) which harden my opposition to today's ban.

Obviously, if the poll is anywhere near correct, the support for such legislation is not so strong as the pro-life lobby would like to believe. In fact, I would still argue that abortion-rights in general are supported 50/50 in this country. Unfortunately, the upcoming court battle over this will bring it right back to the forefront in an election year, with both pro-choice and anti-abortion-rights forces energized and polarized to go at it on election day.

We need a solution for this issue already. Enough is very rapidly becoming enough.

Peace,

V-03

 

Well, your side could always give up, Vaderize03

By the way, I do agree that this country is split 50/50, but that does not change the arguments of either side.

 

An ABCnews.com poll released today shows that 60% of americans favor banning the procedure, a shockingly low number IMHO, given the rhetoric of those like Rick Santorum, who practically accused all women who have this procedure of simply "wanting to get rid of their babies and not be pregnant any more".

I would have thought the description of the procedure itself, and not the rhetoric regarding the motive for it, would have gotten a stronger response. 60% is indeed a surprising number, unless perhaps it was a survey specifically about this piece of legislation.

 

Here is that poll we are talking about.

 

Interesting how women are more opposed to partial-birth abortion than men.

 

That doesn't suprise me at all, given that the procedure is happening inside their bodies.

It's easier for women to be more weirded out by abortion, IMHO, than men.

Hey Jediflyer, your side first .

Peace,

V-03

 

I'm not surprised that women tend to be opposed to partial-birth abortion.

Because I'm extremely lazy, I went and looked up something I posted quite some time ago:

In the UK, the cut-off point for abortion is 24 weeks except in extreme circumstances, e.g. to save the life of the mother. Prior to 1990, the time limit in England and Wales was 28 weeks and in Scotland there was no limit. Interestingly, this change was not reflected by a change in the statistics, which strongly suggests, to me at least, that late abortions tend to be performed for medical reasons rather than because the pregnancy was unwanted.

Just to clarify, the statistics concerned indicated that only 1% of abortions were performed after 20 weeks. I'm way too lazy to look up the number allowed after the 24-week cut-off, but I remember that it had a lot of noughts between the decimal point and the first other digit.


Edit: Dang coding!

 

From MSNBC

WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 ? The Senate on Tuesday voted to ban the practice that critics call partial birth abortion, sending President Bush a measure that supporters and foes alike said could alter the future of U.S. abortion rights. A court challenge is certain.

The 64-34 vote came three weeks after the House passed the same measure by 281-142.
Bush had urged Congress to pass the ban, which Republicans had pursued since the GOP captured the House in 1995, and the president had said he would sign it into law.
In a statement from Singapore, one stop on Bush?s current Asian tour, the president said the legislation ?will end an abhorrent practice and continue to build a culture of life in America. I look forward to signing it into law.

OPPONENTS ASSAIL VOTE

But opponents said the first federal ban on abortion since the Supreme Court?s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was unconstitutional and, like similar state laws, would be struck down.
The president, said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. ?will become the first United States president to criminalize a safe medical procedure.? Doctors who violate the ban would be subject to prison terms of up to two years.
The two sides differed widely on the frequency and definition of partial birth abortion, which is not a formal medical term.
The bill defines partial birth abortion as delivery of a fetus ?until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of the breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus.?
Opponents of the legislation argued that, as defined in the bill, it could apply to several safe and common procedures, and that the real goal of the legislation was to erode overall abortion rights.
?I see what this is about ... this is about politics,? said Boxer. ?I never dreamed I?d be down here with senators who think they know more than doctors.?
But Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., chief sponsor of the bill, said the procedure was both inhumane and unnecessary. ?We can?t allow this kind of brutality to corrupt us. It makes a much more brutal and harsher country if we stand here and say, yes, for whatever reason, we are going to allow this to occur.?

COURT CHALLENGE PROMISED

Several groups, including the National Abortion Federation and the Center for Reproductive Rights, plan to challenge the measure in court as soon as it is signed into law. ?We will take this fight from the Capitol to the courtroom to safeguard the lives and health of women,? said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Gloria Feldt said her group would seek an injunction preventing the legislation from taking effect.
A key focus will be the Supreme Court?s 5-4 ruling in 2000 that a similar Nebraska law was unconstitutional because the definition of the practice was too vague ? making it unclear to doctors what procedures were illegal ? and didn?t have an exception concerning risks to the health of the mother to go along with an exception for when the life of the mother was in danger.

Santorum argued that supporters had met those constitutional questions by tightening the definition and offering extensive findings that the procedure was never needed to protect the health of the mother.
President Clinton twice vetoed partial birth bills on the grounds that they did not include health exceptions.
Anti-abortion leaders said the coming court battle would have far-reaching ramifications.
?In 2000, five Supreme Court justices said that Roe v. Wade guaranteed the right of abortionists to perform partial-birth abortions whenever they see fit. But Congress is now inviting the Supreme Court to re-examine that extreme and

 

From the above speech:

Santorum argued that supporters had met those constitutional questions by tightening the definition and offering extensive findings that the procedure was never needed to protect the health of the mother.

These "extensive findings" are considered false by the American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, as well as the American Medical Association, both of which hold that late-term abortion procedures are medically necessary under rare circumstances.

As I noted previously, Senator Santorum and others should not be making medical claims in lieu of physicians. This invites the further politicization of private medical decisions and health care, with potentially disastrous results-especially for doctors, who are punished exclusively by this bill (which also expressely forbids punishing the woman who was seeking the abortion).

Both sides are steeped in rhetoric, both claim to be "safeguarding the health of women", but IMHO, this should never have come into the political arena. It was only done so to further assail abortion rights in general.

Peace,

V-03

 

I agree very much, I see this as another attempt to create a bigger babysitter.

 

As long as we have the court we have now, the law will be overturned.

How could they not put in a provision allowing for the health and safety of the mother?

If you ask me, I agree with Howard Dean on this one. Politicians should not be so freaking arrogant and self-righteous as to believe they can circumvent 12+ years of education and make laws regarding patient care, DOCTORS, and NOT politicians should be making these decisions.

 

Amen to that, gentlemen.

Peace,

V-03

 

It's awfully quiet in here; as always, I come in late.

Anyway: Pro-choice.*

Move along.

*restrictions apply

Nadia

 

Welcome to the thread Nadia, generally, both sides have a valid point, as does any guns v. butter style debate.

But the new law on Late Term Abortions has been effectively silenced. A federal California Judge ordered an injunction on the law there, a New York Judge took care of the east coast, and the Nebraska judge covers the midwest.

So it looks like freedom and women's rights are going to be upheld, at least until the Supreme Court makes a final decision.