Abortion compromise...what do you think?

[loki09789]

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).

My two cents. Mike

No, neither of us will get pregnant, BUT our tax dollars will be partially used for abortion procedures for some who are using state funded medical coverage and such, you/your health insurance carrier will be paying the medical community rates that are partially based on the risk/liability/'cost' that the medical community puts on procedures like abortions....imagine how expensive it would be if it was 'illegal' and therefore a very administratively scrutinized procedure....chaching! Plus, since most of the medical procedure stuff now comes prepackaged (Appendectomy in a bag with a basic set of sterilized and sealed tools, gauze,....), the cost of such a specialized and infrequently used package would be very high to compensate for the cost of production. All trickling down to the rest of us -whether we are capable of pregnancy or not.

The other thing to consider is that your opinion matters because this isn't just an abortion issue (as so many who love politically charged discussions are fond of saying) - it is a constitutional/precedence issue. This issue is about 'civil liberties' and 'legal identity' establishment. When does a person become a person to be protected by the law?

To answer Tom's clear question clearly:

Yes, I think abortion should be legal and 'normally' done within the first trimester (which I think is the standard already). two days before and such are really ugly to think about but should/already considered and done based on the individual situation/risk involved as far as I know.

The 'brain wave' thing doesn't really affect me as much as MWard's point about survival 'outside of the mother's help' like premmies and such.

Again, ultimately, the same guidelines that dictate state use of force/deadly force policies can be translated to this topic because you are ultimately 'dealing in death' in both cases.

 

[michaeledward]

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!

President Bush recently said, "We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

http://www.chewygravy.com/blog/mirror/ob-love.mov

Now, of course, the President was making this case as an indictment against 'frivolous' lawsuits, which, in turn, cause insurers to raise malpractice rates to the point that doctors economically determine it is not feasible to continue practicing medicine (I heard an interesting report that most new medical students are choosing to be specialists so they can maximize their income, and minimize their time commitments - good for them, bad for us - fewer GPs out there).

Anyhow, I was making a comment on a completely different tangent, that perhaps some OB-GYN's are getting out of practicing medicine because the nut-case wing of the anti-choice crowd occassionally fire weapons at them because they choose to perform abortions.

Mike

 

[michaeledward]

... BUT our tax dollars will be partially used for abortion procedures for some who are using state funded medical coverage and such, you/your health insurance carrier will be paying the medical community rates that are partially based on the risk/liability/'cost' that the medical community puts on procedures like abortions....imagine how expensive it would be if it was 'illegal' and therefore a very administratively scrutinized procedure....chaching! Plus, since most of the medical procedure stuff now comes prepackaged (Appendectomy in a bag with a basic set of sterilized and sealed tools, gauze,....), the cost of such a specialized and infrequently used package would be very high to compensate for the cost of production. All trickling down to the rest of us

The tax dollar argument is interesting. I think I mentioned that concerning the debate question from St. Louis. I am morally opposed the war in Iraq, yet I would not expect to demand of our government that my tax dollars be withheld from that endeavor. The anti-choice crowd makes this argument often.

Concerning costs for any medical activities, competition does not seem to be having the market effect so many wish for. Competition is supposed to drive costs down, yet that isn't happening. A single payer program would be able to apply pressure on medical providers to control costs. At that point, efficiencies in producing 'prepackaged tools' would manifest themselves easily enough, I think.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

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?

Technically, the fetus becomes an infant once it leaves the mother's body. A preemie can survive at roughly 25-27 weeks post-fertilization, due to the lung development that has occured. Until the lungs have developed enough, the preemie will not survive - and even then, only with serious neonatal ICU might a preemie make it.

The worry with preemies is that low-birthweight babies (also full-term babies from moms who smoke heavily during pregnancy, etc.) have increased health problems for many years down the road. We want to make sure the bun stays in the oven until the due date. So preemies may be able to live outside of mom with extensive care, but do not do so well.

 

[Melissa426]

President Bush recently said, "We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."


Anyhow, I was making a comment on a completely different tangent, that perhaps some OB-GYN's are getting out of practicing medicine because the nut-case wing of the anti-choice crowd occassionally fire weapons at them because they choose to perform abortions.

Mike

OK, thanks for clarifying. President Bush's quote is hilarious.

I wonder how many, if any, OB/gyns have quit practicing medicine completely because of fear of being shot. I am not sure if such a study has even been done.

Maybe it different in bigger cities, but I live in a fairly rural part of the midwest and very very few Ob/Gyns around here even do abortions. If someone wants an abortion, probably have to travel at least 1-2 hours to a clinic.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Feisty, As usual, sensible, clearly-stated definitions to back up your statements, and a calm approach to a very volatile and personal topic.

A few comments:
1) Not all ob/gyns will do abortions. Mine doesn't, and she'll tell you she doesn't because she personally doesn't believe in it. That's not to say that she doesn't refer her patients to someone who will perform abortions, which are done at a clinic which has a permanent pro-life picket line in place. She warns every woman she refers there about that, and also offers information on adoption. That's why she's been my doc for the past 20. Smart woman, well-informed, and not ashamed to state where she's at.
2) Glad to see you boys are in agreement that you couldn't possibly know what a woman goes through during a pregnancy - wanted or not.
3) Stem cell research is vital - and since it doesn't interfere with 'life', as was stated above (thank you, Feisty and others), it should proceed. How many other lives will be saved or bettered by it? Parkinson's, diabetes, and other diseases could be cured.
4) The decision is between a woman and her doc. Period. Not for public debate, legislation, condemnation, deliberation, or anything else. She will have to live with that decision for the rest of her life, and if abortion is chosen, living with the thought of killing her child, of what could have been is infinitely more painful than the act itself. How can you possibly get inside someone else's head?
5) Carrying a dangerous pregnancy to term and risking the life of the mother? Absolutely not, in my opinion. One life instead of two.
6) Being raped is one of the most awful experiences a woman can suffer. Compound it by forcing her to keep a child conceived by rape? Unthinkable.

Robertson, you softie you. Just when we think you're a curmudgeon... you're really a woman's rights supporter. Who'dathunkit? (Me - I knew it all along.)

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yeah--I've been this way for a long time, but I once saw some of the Guerilla Girls...in response to an earnest young man's asking, "What...what can we men do to help women," they snapped, "You can get the hell out of our way."

Good for them.

As for the "tax dollars," argument, well, my tax dollars go to support a lot of crap with which I don't agree--not least of which is our current pretty little war in Iraq, where we damn sure are killing innocent kids...oh wait, I forgot, it's just "collateral damage," no harm intended.

Welcome to democratic society, where nobody should get everything that they want.

 

[GAB]

Hi,

A very intelligent person wrote me the other day, "I was going to post but you already said what I was going to say", so with that said, I will just add this...

If Robert, KT and Feisty agree on this, how can I not, especially after reading the posts?

Yes KT, the word unthinkable is appropriate, think of all the women who have gone through that very thing, for hundreds of generations.

The right Choice is not only for the women but for eveyone to think about regarding the next president.

The choice is yours, only you and the vote ballot, hope you make the right one.

Regards, Gary

 

[bignick]

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".

It's kind of hard to get a statement about things like this without qualifiers. If you want my opinion or my beliefs...I feel that in most cases abortion is wrong.

But you're still going to get those qualifiers, because my beliefs have absolutely no weight in this argument since, like others have said, I'll never be pregnant and be put in a situation where I would have to choose.

Again, more of my personal beliefs, no matter what you call an unborn child...be it zygote, embryo, fetus, or baby...the fact of the matter is that in today's world, with modern medical care most likely, the pregnancy will be carried out to term and there will be a brand new little person in the world because of it. I have no problems with birth control or other methods of preventing pregnancy...

My mom was pregnant with me at 20...my grandma gave birth to my uncle when she was 15 and my mom not too long after that...both situations where there would be a good chance of abortion today...and if either of them would have decided to take that road, bignick wouldn't be here today...

There are exceptions for me...as others have said pregnancy due to rape or if the mother's life is in danger (I guess using the word mother is prejudice because to be a mother you need a "baby") ....

In my head, theoretically, even the medical complications that endanger a woman's life are still a gray area...because to me it says that your life is more important than the life of the child...but, in reality, if my wife or girlfriend were pregnant and the doctor said that if you carry this pregnancy out, there is a good chance you will die....you better believe I wouldn't even think twice about her getting an abortion because her life would be more important to me than the child...

Like Tgace said, people try really hard to avoid labels like Pro-abortion, Anti-Choice. Am I against abortion? Yes, my beliefs say that it is wrong to take the life another human being and to me there is a very fine line between taking and merely preventing the life to be fully realized...where should that line be drawn...I have no idea. At the same time, am I pro-choice? Yes, because like others have said...I have no right to impose my beliefs upon others and personal beliefs can change, down the road something could change my perspective...I hold by my beliefs, but if I realize something needs to change it does, because that's where I feel things go wrong, when things get "set in stone" and people are unwilling to change, compromise, or even discuss the matter...I do plenty of things against other peoples beliefs...I work on sunday, I practice martial arts(which means I'm going to hell, by the way, if you missed that thread), I eat pork products (which if you read the Bible, is supposed to be against my beliefs too)...

I have muslim friends and I'll sit with them and eat a bacon cheeseburger and will they jump and beat me down because what I'm doing is against their beliefs, of course not....because, like me, they realize not everyone has the same beliefs as they do and the are willing to accept that...if I asked them about it, they would explain to me why they think it's wrong and that would be the end of it...discussion can be healthy....but they know they aren't going to convert me to Islam and I won't convert them to Christianity...so there is no real reason to discuss it further....the same goes for abortion in my case......words on the internet won't change my views...but I don't expect my words to change yours either...

 

[loki09789]

I'll never be pregnant and be put in a situation where I would have to choose.

..

Yes, and the chances of any of us being President or a military leader or a cop or a teacher or born of some other ethinicity/nationality.... or what ever are slim to none too but we seem to feel free to spout opinions about those things....

This is a lame excuse when I see it. I might not have the same quality or perspective of opinion, but I do have every right to an opinion on this issue.

 

[bignick]

Yes, and the chances of any of us being President or a military leader or a cop or a teacher or born of some other ethinicity/nationality.... or what ever are slim to none too but we seem to feel free to spout opinions about those things....

This is a lame excuse when I see it. I might not have the same quality or perspective of opinion, but I do have every right to an opinion on this issue.

I never said someone wasn't entitled to an opinion...

I don't comment on any of those situations...for the same reason I refrained from posting in this thread for such a long time, I've been lurking here since the thread started...but Tgace kept asking for opinions...so I finally gave mine...

 

[Flatlander]

I might not have the same quality or perspective of opinion, but I do have every right to an opinion on this issue.

Hey Paul, I think we can disagree on this one without having to polarize our otherwise decent MT relationship here.

I honestly think that the only time your opinion ought matter on this topic should be when some of your DNA is involved; at that point even, as an advisor, not a chooser.

For it is my opinion that were we discussing my DNA, I would not put particular relevance on the opinion of anyone else but my wife's. I expect you would feel the same, when it came to crunch time.

 

[loki09789]

Hey Paul, I think we can disagree on this one without having to polarize our otherwise decent MT relationship here.

I honestly think that the only time your opinion ought matter on this topic should be when some of your DNA is involved; at that point even, as an advisor, not a chooser.

For it is my opinion that were we discussing my DNA, I would not put particular relevance on the opinion of anyone else but my wife's. I expect you would feel the same, when it came to crunch time.

Actually, I think the point of discussion is when/where does a fetus become legally recognized as a 'human' that has individual rights and is separate from your wife's DNA. The spin off topic seems to be what people (not just females) think about whether abortion should be legal. This topic touches topics other than a woman's right to choose. It will impact legal/constitutional/state powers issues, socialized medicine (not only is the government legalizing this but also paying for it out of tax payers money), and others...

If a baby/fetus is actual concieved by two people, what about the Father's right to protect the child/fetus from abortion? When, how does a man who wants to have the chance to say yes or no about the life he helped create get any rights? It is more than just a woman's body issue.

As a citizen and a thinking human being, I can have an opinion on this topic

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah, yes...the old, "I'm just protecting the unborn child and the mother argument."

Personally, I'm a little unclear about the idea that anybody gets to force a woman to have a child she does not wish to have.

We already have a compromise. It is, essentially, a libertarian compromise: nobody gets to decide for the woman involved but her.

Funny that there's a long list of issues men like (guns, cycle helmets, cigarettes, etc.,) where it's all personal choice--but oh boy, let it be a matter of a WOMAN'S personal choice, and abruptly there are More Important Things to Be Considered.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

rmcrobertson:

So essentially, you don't think any argument against abortion can have any legitimate motives? Anybody taking such a position is just a man (and I'm further guessing a white capitalist one) trying to suppress women?

 

[loki09789]

Ah, yes...the old, "I'm just protecting the unborn child and the mother argument."

Personally, I'm a little unclear about the idea that anybody gets to force a woman to have a child she does not wish to have.

We already have a compromise. It is, essentially, a libertarian compromise: nobody gets to decide for the woman involved but her.

Funny that there's a long list of issues men like (guns, cycle helmets, cigarettes, etc.,) where it's all personal choice--but oh boy, let it be a matter of a WOMAN'S personal choice, and abruptly there are More Important Things to Be Considered.

I am talking about a man, serious about taking responsibility for the life he helped create, wanting the opporunity to be part of the decision making process that will impact the life he desires to preserve.

Where are his rights as a father - if you are of the opinion that there is no need to identify a 'when' it is recongized as a human life but it is human from the moment of conception?

Would it be unreasonable for a 'compromise' of the woman agreeing to having the fertalized fetus transferred to a surrogate (if possible)?

I agree that the choice belongs to the woman as a citizen of a democratic nation, but what about the choices of the father? If the answer is 'screw you, you have no rights', how can you then come back and then hold a father accountable with 'blame' and 'those evil men' talk? Can't be both ways. If you want men to step up and take responsibility as the 'right thing to do' it needs to be balanced...

 

[loki09789]

Personally, I'm a little unclear about the idea that anybody gets to force a woman to have a child she does not wish to have.

Well, I am unclear how it is fair that some 'evil man' can then forced to pay child support to 'take responsibility' for a child that he had no right/say in whether it was to be aborted or not BUT if he WANTS to act responsibly and the woman says no he has no power to be equally part of that responsibility.....gee whiz.

As a partially white male of the USA, I feel pidgeon holed, profiled, stereotyped and supressed

 

[Flatlander]

As a partially white male of the USA, I feel pidgeon holed, profiled, stereotyped and supressed

Yeah, well, guess its our turn.:ultracool

 

[raedyn]

I am talking about a man, serious about taking responsibility for the life he helped create, wanting the opporunity to be part of the decision making process that will impact the life he desires to preserve.

Where are his rights as a father?

He has rights, up to the point that they interfere with someone else's rights - like those of the mother. She has a right to not be pregnant if she cannot or willnot.

Would it be unreasonable for a 'compromise' of the woman agreeing to having the fertalized fetus transferred to a surrogate (if possible)?

Interesting idea. I don't think medical science is yet able to perform this feat. (Correct me if I'm wrong). There are some questions that I have about this possibility. Would the mother be obligated to the baby once it was born? Or would it be like putting the child up for adoption? Perhaps this is a 'compromise' a woman who didn't want a child could agree to. But what if she didn't want this? Everyone has the right to refuse medical procedures, so couldn't a pregnant woman refuse this as well? I believe this right should be preserved.

 

[raedyn]

Well, I am unclear how it is fair that some 'evil man' can then forced to pay child support to 'take responsibility' for a child that he had no right/say in whether it was to be aborted or not BUT if he WANTS to act responsibly and the woman says no he has no power to be equally part of that responsibility.....gee whiz.

He could have made the choice not to impregnante that woman in the first place. That is when he gets to make his choice.