Abortion compromise...what do you think?

[Feisty Mouse]

I don't think there is one consensus - in part because being pro-choice is about what I think the government should give and limit women who are pregnant and thinking about terminating their pregnacy, for whatever reason. My own personal beliefs are separate for that - what would I do, myself, is pretty different than what I think should be *allowed* for other women, if they so choose it.

(I think I tend towards the #4-6 in the list I made earlier.)

I am strongly pro-choice in part because back-alley abortions kill and sterilize women. One of my friend's relatives almost died from her back-alley abortion years (decades) ago - luckily her brother and his friends were medical students, and sewed her up and saved her life. It's a horrible, horrible thing I would not wish on anyone.

If a woman's pregnancy is so terrible (i.e. rape, incest victims), she should be allowed to deal with it as she sees fit - the earlier, the better. We should not deny women medical care.

 

[Tgace]

Again...and if that decision is made late...say days before the due date (theoretically), that should be "legal"?..lets remove the right/wrong label, and individual choice. Should late term abortion (minus medical reasons) be legal?

 

[raedyn]

Again, it is useful to note that one's formulation of the question is often revealing. Here, the word, "baby," allows access to the underlying ideology.

And I've struggled with what words to use for precisely that reason. There aren't terms that don't come loaded with connotation. I'm not totally comfortable with any of the choices for words.

 

[Tgace]

And I've struggled with what words to use for precisely that reason. There aren't terms that don't come loaded with connotation. I'm not totally comfortable with any of the choices for words.

Its just another cheap way to polarize people.

You said BABY!! I knew it, youre a fundamentalist, anti-choice religious wacko who wants to control women and make them go back to back alley abortions! You said BABY there it is!!

Sheeesh.

 

[heretic888]

I am strongly pro-choice in part because back-alley abortions kill and sterilize women. One of my friend's relatives almost died from her back-alley abortion years (decades) ago - luckily her brother and his friends were medical students, and sewed her up and saved her life. It's a horrible, horrible thing I would not wish on anyone.

This I most definately agree with. :asian:

I consider myself a moderate/centrist, but lean more towards pro-choice.

Personally, my view of the 'sanctity' (if you want to call it that) is based clearly upon the relative presence of sentience and consciousness. This is my view concerning 'moral vegetarianism', as well.

Guess that makes it 27 weeks for me. :idunno:

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Its just another cheap way to polarize people.

You said BABY!! I knew it, youre a fundamentalist, anti-choice religious wacko who wants to control women and make them go back to back alley abortions! You said BABY there it is!!

Sheeesh.

I don't think so.

Technical definitions:

fertilization to 2 weeks - zygote
2 weeks (post-fert) to 8 weeks - embryo
8 weeks to birth - fetus

After birth - baby/infant/neonate.

When someone tells a pregnant woman considering an abortion that they are a "baby-murderer", the use of words is powerful and deliberate. We all know what babies look like, what they are, and how we are supposed to feel about them. Likewise for murder.

Saing "you want to abort your second-trimester fetus" is more technically correct, but lacks the visceral punch of the first comment.

 

[raedyn]

So if a woman chooses to abort her "Fetus" (happy?) on her due date for no other reason than changing her mind thats OK? If thats what you believe fine...at least make a clear stand. Its just not what I believe to be right.

No doctor will abort a fetus on the due date. First, because it's illegal. If a woman "changed her mind" at that late date, she never had her mind made up in the first place. She would be steered towards the adoption option, I'm sure.

 

[raedyn]

When someone tells a pregnant woman considering an abortion that they are a "baby-murderer", the use of words is powerful and deliberate.

Yes yes and yes.

The people using those words believe that to be exactly what abortion is. And so that is why they feel so strongly. Because they can only see 'baby murder' and not the rest of the picture. Some even deny that there is more to the picture.

There are, of course, women who only see the 'baby murder' and who could never even entertain the thought of an abortion. That is their choice. But for other women who might consider abortion - even if they never have one - there is a bigger picture. Deciding to have a baby is a major committment and will affect every facet of your life, so there is a lot to consider. But equally, for most women having an abortion is a major, difficult, and life-altering choice.


When I became pregnant unexpectedly 3 years ago, I was panicked at first. I was young, not wealthy, in a new relationship, it was unplanned.... I struggled with it for a while. I chose to carry the pregnancy to term and have that baby. And I'm glad I did. For me, it was the right choice.

But it was important that I had the choice. If I had been forced to continue with the pregnancy with no other option, I may have struggled with it and been depressed for much longer, and I believe that would have been detrimental to both me and to the development of my child. Instead, I decided that I wanted to be pregnant, I committed joyfully to it, and it was very positive for me and my fiance and we now have a terrific, healthy beautiful daughter. In a different situation, I don't know if I would have made the same choice. I can't know until I'm there.

 

[Tgace]

Still no answer to the late term abortion question....

I believe its because people find the idea distasteful but hesitate to say so because then you have to start moving back to deciding at what point "late term" begins. Some groups will want to push it back to complete illegalization, which I disagree with. But I think there is a valid need to determine where the line should be.

 

[Tgace]

No doctor will abort a fetus on the due date. First, because it's illegal. If a woman "changed her mind" at that late date, she never had her mind made up in the first place. She would be steered towards the adoption option, I'm sure.

Its a theoretical question....if its not a "baby" until birth, why not?

 

[raedyn]

I believe its because people find the idea distasteful but hesitate to say so because then you have to start moving back to deciding at what point "late term" begins. Some groups will want to push it back to complete illegalization

I have exactly the problem you describe. I find the idea of 3 days before due date horrible, but I'm incredibly hesitant to start putting my version of morality on someone else; mostly for fear of having someone try and do same to me. I don't imagine I'm the only one who feels this way.

I think there is a valid need to determine where the line should be.

There currently is a line set in the law. Is it the right line? I don't pretend to know. Can you answer your own question? Where do you think the line should be?

 

[Tgace]

Can you answer your own question? Where do you think the line should be?

Personally. Right around the first trimester mark. However this whole issue of brain activity is new to me and I am not certain how/if that will alter my personal viewpoint.

I find the idea of 3 days before due date horrible, but I'm incredibly hesitant to start putting my version of morality on someone else

Ultimately, isnt that what "law making" is about? We try to come to some common agreement of whats right and wrong and allow some activity and disallow others?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Personally, if I were to choose... I'd leave it up to the mother and her doctor, with strong recommendations to have an abortion before the third trimester, ideally in the first 2 weeks, before implantation.

 

[Tgace]

So...is everybody pretty much saying that abortion should be "legal" right up to birth? Again Im not asking for right/wrong philosophizing, or statements about what is or isnt currently allowed, no "medical emergency" rationale either. From a pure "choice perspective" should it be "legal"?

 

[michaeledward]

I think currently, the legal line is drawn at 'viability', the point where the fetus is able to live seperate from the mother, "albeit with artificial support".

Tangent warning:

During the 3rd presidential debate, President Bush mentioned the 'Dred Scott' ruling from the Supreme Court as a guideline for selecting potential Supreme Court Justices. At the time, I did not recall the specifics of the 'Dred Scott' case (I am ashamed to say).

Let's recall that the Dred Scott decision stated that the United States Government did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in its territories.

Yes folks - GEORGE BUSH FAVORS SLAVERY!

Well, not actually ... according to this article from the Nation, President Bush was really speaking about Supreme Court decisions that denied rights to an entire group; Dred Scott denied rights to those of African descent, Roe V Wade denied rights to fetus.

Anti-choicers, who often compare themselves to abolitionists, have referenced Dred Scott virtually since Roe was decided. A Google search of "Dred Scott abortion [minus] paperwight" turned up 3,960 hits. Both decisions, they argue, denied citizenship, human rights and legal protection to a class of human beings wrongly characterized as property; both forbade legislators from correcting this injustice; both show the need to overturn immoral precedents, stare decisis be damned. That he was thinking about Roe explains Bush's odd characterization of Dred Scott as "personal opinion," which got him tangled up when he belatedly realized that--whoops--the Constitution didn't grant "equality to all"; it permitted slavery. "Personal opinion" is what anti-choicers think Roe is. "Strict construction" means overturning it.

 

[PeachMonkey]

So...is everybody pretty much saying that abortion should be "legal" right up to birth? Again Im not asking for right/wrong philosophizing, or statements about what is or isnt currently allowed, no "medical emergency" rationale either. From a pure "choice perspective" should it be "legal"?

Let me get this straight... you want people's opinions on abortion, an emotional topic wrapped in moral, scientific, religious, and personal judgment, without reference to right or wrong?

Good luck with all that.

 

[Tgace]

Let me get this straight... you want people's opinions on abortion, an emotional topic wrapped in moral, scientific, religious, and personal judgment, without reference to right or wrong?

Good luck with all that.

At this point Im just trying to see if anybody will make a stand on the matter without qualifying it with a "I dont want to impose my morality..." or a "...but it should be between the woman and her doctor."

Obviously there is a visceral reaction to the thought but a hesitation to just state your opinion for fear of seeming "anti-choice".

Personally Im not rabidly anti-abortion but I do believe late term abortion (past viability at least) is wrong and should be illegal minus a pressing medical reason. I guess I am imposing my morality there but there it is. Its what I believe.

 

[michaeledward]

At this point Im just trying to see if anybody will make a stand on the matter without qualifying it with a "I dont want to impose my morality..." or a "...but it should be between the woman and her doctor."

Obviously there is a visceral reaction to the thought but a hesitation to just state your opinion for fear of seeming "anti-choice".

Personally Im not rabidly anti-abortion but I do believe late term abortion (past viability at least) is wrong and should be illegal minus a pressing medical reason. I guess I am imposing my morality there but there it is. Its what I believe.

As I am never going to get pregnant, so I really don't understand why my opinion matters. If a woman decides, for whatever reason, that the best choice is to terminate her pregnancy, and she can find a doctor willing to do so, I believe that should be her right (even post viability, which today is against the law, as I read Roe v. Wade).

Of course, that may be why it is getting for OB-GYN's to practice their 'love' with their patience, is because if the anti-choice crowd has some wingnuts who shoot guns at them.

I believe I have taken this stand throughout this thread. There is no 'BUT' in my opinion. Please see post #4.

I think that any woman can come to an appropriate decision on this subject based on her beliefs. What occurs between a woman and her doctor is none of my business.

Or, please see this post. (#34 in this thread)

No. I am saying the choice of terminating a pregnancy belongs to a woman, her belief system, and her doctor.

And then there is also this part of post #29 of this thread.

I think, however, this has little to do with what decision a woman makes in the company of her conciousness and her doctor.

My two cents. Mike

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I personally want to have an answer as to what the difference is between a newborn and a fetus, regarding moral equivalency, because I believe in a woman's right to choose, if to a point, but I need a reason to believe it.

The question about when a fetus becomes human is a relevent one. That question is the reason some don't think that it's only between a woman and her doctor. If a fetus is shown to be just as human as a guy on the street, then there is an interest in preserving them. When some guy shoots another guy on the street, it's not really any of my business, right? I had nothing to do with them, correct?

 

[Melissa426]

Of course, that may be why it is getting for OB-GYN's to practice their 'love' with their patience, is because if the anti-choice crowd has some wingnuts who shoot guns at them.

Whaaat? Can you clarify or explain what that you meant by that? I think I agree with it, if I am interpreting it correctly, but just want to double check!



Peace,
Melissa