We Democrats Must Compromise on the Abortion Issue.

[mckara]

I know the abortion issue is more a battle of equal rights for women, but we democrats need to change our stance and acknowledge the rights of the fetus. If we support the rights of the fetus after 16 weeks of the pregnancy, unless the health of the mother is under duress, we would neutralize the entire issue.
I would enjoy hearing other thoughts on the issue.

[dogtag]

1. My thought: a fetus has no rights. Period.

[Willy Lee]

150. Original post by a MALE,

Why am I not surprised???

[okieinpain]

154. well it won't matter in a year or so, because that will probably be

the law of the land. that way the repugs will keep their fundie base, the young women will still have access to abortion, and will say well those repugs aren't so bad. and we will still be getting voted out of office, because we've compromised enough.

[XNASA]

2. Define 'duress'.

[Worst Username Ever]

3. We've compromised plenty already n/t

[Search Party]

4. we concede NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[catzies]

5. No.

HELL NO.

[Maat]

61. Nope.

Hell no!

[truthseeker1]

6. You've come to the wrong place to fight this argument

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[d_b]

8. ..

:freak:

[Ninga]

9. The more you give, the more they take.

Absolutely not. How old are you anyway? I am old. Old enough to remember back room abortions.

Did you know abortions were down during the Clinton administration?

They have increased during Bush, and the cause has been attributed to a rise in unemployment.

Sad, isn't it.

[liberal N proud]

10. Abortion is an issue the repubes keep bring up because they

know it will get the base right to lifers and sting the democrats who know that it is not a topic for the government and is a moral issue not a leagal
Moral vs Leagal - What do you want to have laws created for?

[Ducks In A Row]

11. bullshit. that's my thought

they can all kiss my ass because it's not about the fetus at any stage.

You know how rape isn't about sex, it's about control and power.

Well it's the same with these anti-choice morons. It's never about the fetus, it's about power and control over women.

So, no. There's no room for compromise.

[Laelth]

12. What?

Not a funny joke. Not at all.

Given the choice between a Republican and a Republican, the American people will elect the Republican every time.

-Laelth

[Dookus]

13. bullshit

[Claire Beth]

14. we're talking about opening Pandora's box here.....

where does it start and where does it end? I say concede NOTHING.

[w13rd0]

15. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention...

...Democrats have been "compromising" with the Republicans for several election cycles now. The result has been that the GOP now paints Democrats as willing to say anything to be elected, because the Democrats keep compomising and changing their positions. There can be no compromise with extremists.

[CornField]

16. Why don't you go offer up some of your own rights

AND LEAVE THE RIGHTS OF ME AND MY DAUGHTERS THE FUCK ALONE?

[VelmaD]

23. What you said

:yourock:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

37. If women can't have abortions, the dude who started the thread should stop

whacking off. Every spilled sperm is death and denying the creation of a fetus.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truebrit71]

17. Prepare to get flamed....

The fetus has no rights because it's a FETUS. It is NOT a human being. It cannot survive outside the womb. It is NOT a person.

I suggest that the Christian Taliban in this country quit lying about this issue and leave it in the hands of those whom know it best, women and their doctors.

Fuck the politicians and fuck the fundies that think otherwise.

If MEN got pregnant freedom of choice would be engraved in the Bill of Rights.

[Amaya]

27. "If MEN got pregnant

freedom of choice would be engraved in the Bill of Rights."

Isn't that fucking truth!

[truebrit71]

41. This isn't about cute cuddly little babies..

This is about men holding dominion over women and their bodies...

This is about a bunch of crusty old white men telling MY wife and MY daughter what they can and can't do with their bodies....

To them I say FUCK YOU!!!!

[Quill Pen]

94. Exactly; it's about punishing...

...women who have sex. And plenty of pro-life women think that women who enjoy sex on their own terms should be punished.

I read in another thread last week the perfect closer for this argument. The Constitution assigns rights to "all persons born or naturalized" in this country. Fetuses are neither. Case dismissed!

[choicevoice]

105. If men got pregnant

you could get 1/2 off an abortion with your oil change.

[Claire Beth]

30. I agree....

and if they change the constitution and provide 14th amendment rights to the fetus....where does start and end? Will we have "pregnancy police" for woman who have miscarriages? Will they have to prove it was indeed a miscarriage and NOT an abortion?

[irancontra]

18. NO. enough BS about gays & abortion. IT's e-voting fraud buddy.

[el_gato]

19. and maybe we should bring back slavery just a little bit

[dogtag]

57. Could I get one that would come in on

Thursdays to do some light cleaning? (just kidding)

We have plenty of slaves around my affluent area of Southern California. They work as maids, nannies, yardmen, restaurant kitchen busboys and dishwashers, mechanics, car washers, etc., etc. They have little or no protection from the long arm of the law and are grossly underpaid and exploited. Some are not paid at all and are locked up in small overcrowded rooms at night to prevent escape. They live in constant fear of being sent to the really bad plantation...Mexico.

/end rant.

[Ducks In A Row]

85. maybe the original poster who started the thread can volunteer

to be the first of the new slaves. :D

[gumby]

20. Compromise This!!!!!!!

end of message

[arwalden]

21. Good Grief!! - Every Sperm Is Sacred, Eh?

[el_gato]

35. that's why we have to outlaw masturbation as well

[Tesibria]

104. YES - absolutely ...

.. that's why birth control (except for the rhythm method in limited circumstances) is wrong.

and why masturbation is evil (whatta waste of that precious fluid).

[physioex]

22. No way....

This country is about "freedom". I am not giving up rights that people in Europe and thrid world countries enjoy. Plus making it illegal won't solve the problem, it would just send it underground.

Tell Shrub to improve the economy, give people decent paying jobs, and crime free neighborhoods. Then the rates of abortion will go down!!!

Course this is too complicated for the fundies to understand...

[Kathy in Cambridge]

24. "We" Democrats?

I think not. Nice try.

The Christo-fascists won't be happy until there is no abortion, and women are barefoot, pregnant and denied rights at every turn. We should NEVER compromise on abortion. Now go crawl back into your hole.

[Carni]

25. Thanks but NO

No, make that

HELL NO

[bowens43]

26. Don't be ridiculous.

A fetus is not a person, it has no rights.

[lovedems]

28. Screw that.

I am not going to let religious zealots make me compromise. Pardon my french but they can fuck off. I am not compromising on this issue at all.

Edited to add: I am a member of the oppositon party now. I intend to fulfill my obligations. Opposition will become a way of life for me. For the next 4 years anyway.

[benburch]

29. Bullshit.

I will never compromise on the Right To Privacy.

[eataTREE]

31. I would sign off on this under the following conditions.

Knowing that the vast, vast majority of abortion procedures are performed at or before 16 weeks anyway, this isn't the worst idea I've ever heard. However, these conditions would have to apply.

- Full federal funding for abortion procedures at or before 16 weeks, no qualifications whatsoever.
- No "parental notifications", no waiting periods, no mandatory counselling, nada. A woman wants an abortion at or before 16 weeks, she can have one. Period.
- Rape, incest, life or health of the mother threatened are all exceptions wherein a woman can obtain an abortion at any point.
- Federal funds for training of OB/GYNs so that it's easy to find a clinic that performs abortions in all 50 states.

If all those points were included, I would consider this compromise.

[VelmaD]

47. Since you can't get pregnant...

I'll thank you not to just give away the rights of those who can. :eyes:

[eataTREE]

90. Hear me out.

I have absolutely no desire to restrict women who want abortions from getting them.

I believe that the net effect of what I described would actually *increase* the availability of abortions, not decrease them.

As was pointed out downthread, 91% of abortions are performed at or before 12 weeks, anyway. I think state provisions like parental notification laws are actually a barrier to more women (and girls) seeking abortions than a 16-week cutoff would be. And an even bigger barrier is lack of funds. A D&C from Planned Parenthood costs $600, an odious sum for a woman who is poor, or underaged, or both.

I think if we traded a 16-week cutoff for full federal funding of abortions for women who can't afford them, plus the death of all stupid state laws requiring a waiting period or parental consent or a stern lecture, we would have actually increased, not decreased, the availability of abortion. What's not to like about that from the pro-choice point of view?

Of course if this ever saw the legislative light of day (unlikely to impossible), what would happen is that the Right would ensure that the bits about increased access were not in the final version of the bill, while the bits about restricting abortions after 16 weeks most certainly were. Which would not be good at all. So it's mostly just an intellectual exercise.

[VelmaD]

93. Well, for you it's an intellectual exercise...

for the female half of the population it's a bit more serious than that.

[eataTREE]

129. Yeah.

'cos I don't, like, actually know any women, or empathize with them all. Pretend just for a minute that we're on the same side here. I don't donate to Planned Parenthood due to my pro-life beliefs.

What you seem to be saying is that it's not important whether or not women who need them can actually obtain abortions -- as long as they have the legal right to do it (after they get parental consent, of course, as is now the law in 20 states), you're cool. Pardon me for saying so, but that doesn't make a great deal of sense. Which is actually the greater barrier to a pregnant teenager obtaining an abortion: having to get consent from her Christian fundamentalist father who is going to make her life miserable for having 'fornicated' and deny permission, or having to schedule and obtain the procedure before four months elaspe? Which is the greater barrier to an impoverished woman: having to get the procedure done before four months are up, or having to pay $600 that she doesn't have?

What makes it an intellectual exercise is that the pro-life crowd would NEVER sign off on the terms I've given, because they know as well as I do that parental-consent laws prevent more abortions than a ban after 16 weeks ever would.

[VelmaD]

133. You still aren't getting it...

if you give on this issue even just a little bit...the right-wing loonies will never stop. There is no compromise you can make that will be enough. You get that up to 16 weeks law passed and they'll just work on whitling it down to 12 then 8 then 4 then ZERO.

And they will NEVER EVER allow for federal fundinig of abortions.

[Ducks In A Row]

122. How about you keep your nose out of other people's rights?

[omnithrope]

32. no.

.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pithlet]

34. While we're at it.

Civil rights. We'll lose on that issue. And poverty; people are just greedy. They will never see eye to eye on that issue. Think of the vote we'll get there. Separation of Church and State? Just pretend to pray; is it all that difficult? Environment? It's just about a bunch of animals and clean air; they're not worth the votes we lose.

[Mandate My Ass]

63. LOL

This kind of post has been popping up with increasing frequency since Nov. 3rd. If I were the suspicious type I'd think the purpose would be distraction or divide and conquer. Nah.........:evilgrin:

[Pithlet]

75. Admins should compromise

Just rename this site Free Republic and run the place just like them. Think of the votes we could win! Cuts down on the work mods have to do weeding out the disruptors. Win/win.

[Socialist Dem]

36. compromise is not possible

The right wing will not compromise with us. They will not stop until a woman's right to choose is totally gone, even if her life is threatened. It's an all or nothing "issue" with them, even if they do start out with small steps.

Then, after they take that right away, what's next for them to take away? Will they declare sperm as sacred and then go for outlawing vasectomies? Will they ask that all contraception be made illegal because it interferes with god's will?

Sorry, but we can't give an inch on this, or they'll take a yard.

[Pithlet]

48. Republicans. The Compromise Party.

We should strive to be just like them. Makes a lot of sense. </sarcasm>

[rogerashton]

38. Won't work.

I'm not personally committed to unregulated abortion rights, although I regard that as the lesser evil by comparison with any regulation we would be likely to get. But that won't get the democrats any votes. On the one hand, the polls I know of say that a majority support abortion rights. On the other hand, everyone who genuinely votes Pub on that issue will vote Pub anyway. There is no way we can outflank the Pubs to the right on this one! No use trying.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Where do we stop conceding?

NO Roe vs Wade?

GO back to MckInley Ameirca

Bring back Slavery? I mean it cuodl not be taht bad and it IS in Leviticus you know.

Where exacctly do we stop conceding, when Cotton Mather imposes the rules of Mass Bay Colony on all of us?

(Yes for those who do not know what Mass Bay was, read a little, becasue for soem GOPers that is exactly where they want to go)

[Fenris]

40. Have you ever had an abortion or known someone who has?

My sister had a second trimester abortion this past summer. Contrary to popular belief, it was not an easy ordeal. It nearly ripped my family apart. But it was better than the alternative. My sister is not capable of caring for a child. She's barely an adult.

I tire of people telling me why I should compromise my beliefs on abortion. I will not. Ever. Nor will my mother, who almost broke down over my sister's ordeal. It made her more pro-choice, having to listen to all the state-mandated warnings she and my sister were read and forced to sign. Junk science.

Did you know that St. Thomas Aquinas believed that the soul does not enter the body until the moment of birth? Or that he believed that a fetus was on the level of animal matter? And that in the early stages of life, a human embryo was the equivalent of plant matter?

I won't compromise.

[Wat_Tyler]

136. Well put.

I'd like to see the other side give the subject as much thought.

[Fenris]

143. There is apparently too much yelling to be done.

:(

Thanks, Wat.

[Beware the Beast Man]

137. Until very recently, the Church took a moderate stance on abortion.

I think when they eventually ran out of Crusades, they had to take one up, and this was it.

[Fenris]

144. To be honest, abortion made me completely abandon Catholicism.

Not that I wasn't heading there already. But the last time I went to Mass a deacon spoke about how not just abortion, but also invitrofertilization was evil. I couldn't be a part of anything like that.

[Beware the Beast Man]

147. If women's reproductive rights were on par ,

there would be no need for abortion.

[xxqqqzme]

42. nononoonononononononononono

ab-so-f*cking-lute-ly not. Is that clear enough 4 U. I will not become a 2nd class citizen again. Hello?, women have had the vote 4 less than 100 years. A little early 2 B furiously backpedaling & handing over our bodies 2 stupid white men again.

[demokatgurrl]

43. NO WE MUST NOT COMPROMISE.

[Search Party]

44. Maybe Republicans can be "concerned" after babies are born, too!

[drdon326]

45. NOT ME !! NO WAY !!

I dont want a pro-jobs change for back-alley butchers.

[Cocoa]

46. I wonder where that position falls on the spectrum

it sounds like a position that would appall many Republicans, let alone Democrats.

[MichaelHarris]

49. you

go ahead and decide the rights of others and judge them, I'll leave those decisions up to them, their doctor, and whatever higher power they believe in, just like the bible says.

[quiet.american]

50. Let's call it what it is

It's not "the abortion issue" -- it's the "pro-choice" vs. "anti-choice" issue.

It's the "women choose what to do with their own bodies" issue vs. the "men get to choose what women do with their own bodies" issue.

If it were really an "abortion" or "pro-life" issue, for starters, those who froth at the mouth over it (and not referring to the poster of this thread, here) would understand Bush is bad for their cause, as the abortion rate has soared under his reign. Go figure.

[prolesunited]

51. I'm so glad that you as a man

are so willing to sacrifice WOMEN's equal rights for the good of the party.

BTW, here are some facts, cited from a source I'm sure you'll find credible:

Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed. 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html

Do you see that figure 91% already *are* in the first trimester!

And here's some more stats that will probably shatter some of your other stereotypes.

CDC figures for 1995 show that 20 percent of women having abortions are in their teens; 33 percent are ages 20 to 24, and 47 percent are ages 25 or older. 

Eighty percent of women having abortions are single; 60 percent are white; 35 percent are black. 

Eighty-two percent of the women having abortions are unmarried or separated. 

Almost half of American women (43 percent) will have an abortion sometime in their lifetime. 

[mckara]

82. Then Why Not Require 16 Weeks and

put an end to the issue? If you want an all or nothing approach women may lose all rights regarding abortion. Are you willing to take that chance?

[VelmaD]

86. You really don't get it do you...

if we give the right-wing nutjobs even one inch they will take a mile. You cannot compromise with them. Every little bit you give them they want more and more and more until women are left with nothing.

[Terran]

119. I have a Devil's Advocate question

I'm a gay male and although I'm pro choice, I don't know jack about the physiology of prenatal development. Many people here have said, in response to the original proposition, that a fetus cannot have *any* rights because it is not a person. And one said, a fetus is not a person because it cannot survive outside the womb. The statistics cited above indicate that 100 third trimester abortions are performed in the US in any given year.

So my question is, I guess, when *does* a fetus "become" a "person"--in the opinions of those present? It seems ludicrous to assert that a fetus is not a person until the moment it exits the womb. How exactly does one justify a third trimester abortion where, possibly, the issue of survival outside the womb may be moot? The issue of "personhood" seems to some extent a matter of opinion and law. I see it being cited in this thread over and over again with utter certainty, when I'm not sure such certainty is warranted 100% of the time.

Please don't mistake my motives. I'm seriously interested in your opinions and I have struggled with this issue for many years. My sister had an abortion when we were teenagers and I very much support the right to control one's body. But I can't help feeling that there's a grey area when it comes to the development of the fetus, where some of the statements I've seen here become difficult to apply.

No flames or sarcasm please--I'm trying to understand.

[July]

128. It's not an easy question.

For me, personhood begins when one successfully crosses the frontier of birth. Even pregnancies that are wanted to do not always end in the birth of a person. The legal boundary is the only one that makes sense to me, since I do not believe in a soul that makes even a fetus a "person." It is, for me, an entirely practical question, both medical and legal. If one survives a pregnancy and birth, one is a "person." This can include pre-term births, of course -- surviving birth is key. This becomes dicey with stillbirths or deaths shortly after birth, but the question of the rights of a person is not materially affected in those cases. It's a fetus till it crosses the frontier, for me.

[Terran]

140. See, I have a problem with that definition

It's a technicality. How can one say that a baby/fetus/whatever that is, say, one day away from being due, is not a person? I don't see a substantive difference in that entity between being in the womb and being out of it, assuming survival.

[July]

155. You don't have to agree with me, but it's not a technicality to me.

As I've said before, not all fetuses make it through birth. If the question of when legal rights are bestowed is in question, I feel it should be after a successful birth. Beforehand, the rights of the mother -- an actual rather than a potential person -- are paramount. FOR ME.

You can separate the legal rights question from personhood if you have beliefs that a fetus and a born person both have souls. I do not hold that view, and the answer that religion has given to that question has varied over time.

"Assuming survival" is critical in my view. Do you consider a fetus that does not survive a person? For an expectant mother who thinks it will survive, I am sure it feels like a loss of a person, but in terms of legal personhood and rights, it is not.

JMO

[mitchtv]

52. Let's desert the Gays too

no surrender no retreat. Join the republicans please you are not a Democrat.

[JHB]

53. I think we need to better point out...

...that the most morally-consitent "pro-life" position is the most extreme one: no exceptions for rape, incest, or anything (after all, that "life" isn't responsible for how it got started). All other position ARE "choice". Don't let them hide.

[Zorra]

54. The election was stolen with electronic voting machines. No compromises

General strike and boycott.

[the Princess]

55. Who is this "WE"????

No compromise - no surrender!

[Droopy]

56. The way to battle the Republicans is not to give up rights, but to

get our message to the public. Make people understand why we think the way we do. Part of this is assuming we lost the election straight up, though. There are some here who feel that fraud was involved and the jury is still out on that. Who knows, a majority of people in this country may already feel the way we do.

[mckara]

58. I Understand the Polarized Argument but...

Compromise is needed or the republicans are going to hold the South and Midwest for the remainder of our lives. What would be an acceptable compromise?

[VelmaD]

67. There is NO acceptable compromise on this issue

Period. You are either for women's rights or against it. End of discussion. As a man you DO NOT get to decide...and that's the basic problem so many fundy whack-jobs have with abortion. They can't bear that a woman gets to decide something for herself.

[CTLawGuy]

92. weve compromised ourselves to death for 4 years and

gotten squat in return.


The way to win is to stand up for something, not to be republican lite.

[Ducks In A Row]

101. how about this for a compromise

men who are against abortion have their balls removed.

that way you know for sure you can't create any opportunity for a woman to need one.

[Tesibria]

112. The Acceptible Compromise

To adopt TRUE pro-life positions -- i.e., to reduce the number of abortions by making it easier to have and care for a baby.



NOTE TOO: 90% of abortions happen in the first 16 weeks of pregnancy. I don't think that the Repubs would consider that a compromise ....

--------------------
Store: www.cafepress.com/tesibria.com
Blog: www.democracyiscoming.com

[arwalden]

59. Oh... I See You Declared Your Gender As MALE.

I wonder if that has anything to do with your deep and personal understanding of this issue.

[Droopy]

70. This issue mainly affects women, but

a man can have a good understanding of the issue and empathize. I do. I think you're right in that the original poster doesn't really understand the issue, but keep in mind many women want to give up their right to have an abortion.

[arwalden]

74. I Think It Makes It Easier For Him To Support An Idiotic Idea...

... that doesn't affect him directly.

[VelmaD]

78. No, they want to give up MY right...

to have an abortion. I got no problem with women who choose not to have an abortion...as long as they keep their hands off my choice. And at least they have some frame of reference since they might actually one day face the choice.

[GoBlue]

60. Do you honestly believe that you or anyone else has the right

to force a woman to create a child against her will? Think about it.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[molly]

64. THE fetus is not viable until it can live outside the uterus

until then, scientifically, it is a parasite, unlike the 100,000+ innocents killed in Iraq and the 100's killed constantly in the prison systems.

Are you enjoying my thoughts? I doubt it - why don't you adopt all those unwanted children born because their mothers had no CHOICE?

[Beaverhausen]

65. Here's a compromise-spend more money on education and access to

...reproductive health services, including contraceptives.

That is the ONLY COMPROMISE we will agree to.

[CO Liberal]

66. I Endorse The Feminist View of the Abortion Issue

One penis - no vote.

[lawladyprof]

68. The problem is when life begins

Some fundamentalist say the moment of conception, which rules out birth control and in vitro fertilization. I say we ought to make 'em stand up on just this point.

After implementation where do you draw the line. An abortion a week before delivery is an anathema to the great majority of people. Sixteen weeks is too early as many women gets testing for serious birth defects and can't get the results back in time. But there could be room for compromise with the vast majority of people who are troubled by abortion somewhere in the margins. Like if your reason for an abortion is financial you shouldn't wait until way late to get an abortion. The mother's life and physical health trumps all (and this is the rub with the so called partial birth abortion law--no exception for mother's health--I don't know all the ins and outs of health versus physical health exception). Mother's emotional health trumps most. Flame away

[July]

121. When I talk to anti-choice people, I mention one of your points:

The fact that many people are troubled by some aspects of abortion. My point is that, despite this,it is legal and supported by the majority of us. My argument is that these people who want some form of legal abortion are STILL -- despite concerns -- incapable of viewing abortion as murder, the way they would view someone coming up to me and shooting me as murder (or any other form of murder that we now prosecute in the courts).

The rabid anti-choicer does view abortion as murder, BUT, if the rest of society really did think of it that way, IT WOULD NOT BE LEGAL. We as a society do not condone murder.

It's black and white for the anti-choicer. For the rest of us, it's much more complicated. We don't have any trouble recognizing murder of living humans. But we do have trouble calling abortion murder, at least in most cases.

For the record, I feel that any abortion, at any stage, is entirely up to the pregnant woman, though I understand why late-term abortions cause misgivings.

[Q]

This is a really great...

...RWing position you've brought for us to ponder. Hmmm...let me see. Should we give rights to the unborn as we take them away from the born? Why even ask such a naive question?

- You should have quit half way through your first sentence.

[Orangepeel]

69. DUH! That's what Roe vs. Wade SAYS!

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.


(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.


(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.


(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.


4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.


5. It is unnecessary to decide the injunctive relief issue since the Texas authorities will doubtless fully recognize the Court's ruling that the Texas criminal abortion statutes are unconstitutional. P. 166.

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

[jzodda]

71. It would not neutralize the issue

Those that are pro-life to the exclusion of any other issue would say they are murderers for the first trimester.

I mean think about this for 1 sec...They think the mourning after pill is murder, stem cell research is murder...

I dont see how we can have any discussion with people who are so extrmeme on this issue at all.

[CBHagman]

72. Since the GOP is opposed to universal health care...

...and its platform is to make abortion illegal, I think yours is just the wrong argument to make at just the wrong time. They don't care about the fetus in terms of prenatal care, and they sure as hell don't care about it once it passes down the vaginal canal. Why should we think they believe it has rights?

[Retrograde]

73. the dems need to refocus on preventing abortions

by means of adequate sex education in all schools and readily available birth control. We need to stop being sucked into this abortion vs nothing black hole.

[Democat]

76. "We liberals" in the "democrat party" must stop worshipping satan!

:eyes:

[flpoljunkie]

77. We need to educate the masses. Roe v. Wade has never allowed unfettered

right to an abortion. The state's interest begins at the end of the first trimester. The Republicans have succeeded in making abortion an issue by passing "partial birth abortion." Two federal judges have already ruled this recently enacted Congressional measure unconstitutional because it does not protect the life and health of the mother.

People need access to birth control and to be encouraged to behave responsibly about having unprotected sex, so there will be a decreased need for abortions. Of course, the Republicans want abstinence along--which does not work. Abortions are up since Bush took office in 2000!

[juliagoolia]

79. Maybe we can get them to allow

Prevention of pregnancy by using SEX ed too. Birth control pills available without parental consent? don't bet on it.

They need to teach more than abstaining from sex too. Think that will go over? not on your life...

They not only do not want abortion at all, they want to save frozen embryos who are on the way to the trash.

None of this is logical.

They want to make it criminal for anyone to have an abortion or to perform one. Will they jail anyone that leaves the nation to have one? Will they execute the dr or the woman if they break the law? YOU BET! (some would not but some would for sure) You would think it is logical that they would not do this, but they would.

They have already turned the fetus into a person with the Laci Peterson law. That needs to be stuck down in court too because of the precedent it sets in the personhood of the fetus/embryo/zygote.

zygotes although frozen should have all the civil rights of the kid living next door. That is the take of these folks and dont forget how serious they are.

The way to fight them is to urge them to also support the end of fertilization labs that they enjoy! The logic will fall in upon itself. They are supporting the creation of zygotes that will stay in freezers or end up in the trash so they can have a baby. HYPOCRITES!

Forced adoption is evil for the parents and the child.

I am an adopive mom, and work with adoptees and birth parents. No one comes through this unscathed.

[Bridget Burke]

80. Have you enjoyed hearing our thoughts yet?

The anti-abortion forces think that abortion is murder. No matter how early, no matter the circumstances of conception, no matter the mother's condition. They would not compromise.

I'm sticking with Roe V Wade, myself. What other rights do you want to relinquish? Anything that might affect you, personally?

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

83. No.

No No more compromise on the right of a woman to make a decision with her doctor. No.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KT2000]

106. My feelings exactly

abortion obsession to the exclusion of all else except supporting tax cuts that obliterate programs such as child protective servies, children's healthcare, children's education, children's food programs.

[ima_sinnic]

87. I will never compromise with those liars, thieves & self-righteous

hypocrites

NEVER



the election was a fraud

[FizzFuzz]

88. Forced Breeding. Men offer up women's rights to palliate the RW zealots

Thanks alot. With friends like you in the Dem party, Women don't need enemies.

U.S. Ambassador Hosts Anti-Family Planning Event

From Population Connection
http://actionnetwork.org/populationconnection/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=2727818

<snip>
US AMBASSADOR HOSTS ANTI-FAMILY PLANNING EVENT
Earlier this week, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Danforth, sponsored a panel discussion on "Maternal Mortality: Effective Strategies for Increasing Maternal and Newborn Survival." Admission to this US-funded event was controlled by a little-known organization dedicated to abolishing family planning programs throughout the world

Even more disturbing, one of the speakers at the taxpayer funded forum was the former Peruvian Minister of Health, Dr. Fernando Carbone, who attempted to require women to register all pregnancies with Peruvian public health services from the moment of conception and sought to ban emergency contraceptives in Peru.

Please take a minute to let Ambassador Danforth know that you find it unacceptable for the U.S. to sponsor a panel that promotes ideologically driven, factually incorrect, and dangerous views on women's reproductive health.
<snip>

To these people, women are incubation units on legs.

[Caution]

89. Those who oppose abortion believe that life begins at conception not 16

weeks. They will not stop until they make it illegal for a woman to choose.

[sangh0]

95. 2/3 of ALL Americans agree with US

so of course, the republicans want us to change our popularly supported ideas.

[choicevoice]

96. in two words "FUCK NO"

you want to be anto choice, fine. Don't bargain away my rights.

[jjanpundt]

97. Not a damn chance! We fought hard

for that right! We've compromised enough! No more!

[ironrooster]

98. Democrats are losing b/c they aren't radical enough

Ask a religious conservative it they would PERSONALLY go up to a woman/girl who has been a victim of rape/incest and inform them that they voted to DISALLOW THEM ANY OTHER OPTIONS THAN CARRYING THE FETUS TO TERM. Religious conservatives ARE IGNORANT - They have no empathy for others outside their tribe and can't conceive of any other reality than their own limited view of the universe. Europe learned a long time ago where this type of zealotry leads and they have rejected it - (with exception of those states where the Roman Catholic church still holds sway).

[Redleg]

107. That's not really radical behavior- that is sensible behavior.

You are right about how we should frame the issue.

[ironrooster]

113. thank you - they need to be confronted in those terms

I told this to a guy I work with who is a religious conservative and it left him stumbling for words & then he got really pissed and walked off. You have to lay it on the line!

[Redleg]

126. Yes indeed. We need to stop pussyfooting around and acting as though

we are afraid to offent those ridiculous bastards on the right. I take James Carville's advice to heart when he said Dems have to stop 1) apologizing and 2) agreeing with the other side.

[ironrooster]

141. I'm working on a strategy to deflate the bastards

I think we need to laugh (publicly) at their absurdities whenever the chance presents itself. Problem is, that we all to often want to 'engage' them. They need to be made to feel insecure with their beliefs & the efficacy of cutting humor can't be overstated. Alot of DU'ers in the past days have said that they think that we haven't reached out enough to explain the issues in terms these folks understand - that's BS IMO. I think we all need to go and rent 'Inherit the Wind' and learn from it...(the one with Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow)

"When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President. Now I'm beginning to believe it."
Clarence Darrow
US defense lawyer (1857 - 1938)

[DS1]

99. BULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

shit.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VelmaD]

109. It sure looks like it

Do what I did...hit alert sp the mods know about it.

[Redleg]

127. And they deleted MY message- what the hell?

I guess we can't accuse people of being trolls, huh?

[DS1]

139. No, you can't.

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, troll, conservative, Republican, or FReeper. Do not try to come up with cute ways of skirting around the spirit of this rule. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post so the moderators can deal with it. Unfortunately, it has become all too common for members of this message board to label anyone with a slightly different point of view as a disruptor. We disapprove of this behavior because its intent is to stifle discussion, enforce a particular "party line," and pre-emptively label a particular point of view as inappropriate or unwelcome. This makes thoughtful and open debate virtually impossible.

-----------------------------------
Of course, most of us do this at some point :shrug:

[Bridget Burke]

110. It's quite possible.

Now they're telling us just how "we" need to compromise....

[sangh0]

124. Gee, ya think?

And many DUers, true to form, are playing right into. The RNC says "talk about gay marriage" and some DUers talk about nothing else. The RNC says talk about abortion, and some DUer talk about nothing else.

[IrateCitizen]

102. More weak-kneed caving in on our values...

The problem with the issue of reproductive choice isn't that the Democrats' stance is out of the mainstream but rather that we've allowed the RW to frame it in a manner that speaks to RW "values" while we avoid tying our pro-choice stance to "values".

Well over 1/2 of the population believes that a woman should be able to choose whether or not she wants to have an abortion. A sizeable part of that majority may be against abortion PERSONALLY, but they don't believe it is their right to make that choice for others.

That, in effect, is the definition of PRO-CHOICE.

Furthermore, we've allowed our opposition to be defined by the term "pro-life". How do you go against someone who is labelled "pro-life". What does that then mean that you are, pro-death?

We need to get this argument framed around the simple concept of pro-choice and anti-choice.

I would think that by now people would realize that ceding turf to the Republicans is a colossally losing strategy. I guess that there are still some who are too dense to have picked up on this fact thus far.... :eyes:

[Redleg]

103. The other side won't compromise on this issue.

They believe life begins at conception, not after 16 weeks. They also don't give a good god-damn about the life of the mother.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

108. Allowing women to control their own bodies? How unDemocratic.

Seeing as how we should "compromise" women into what amounts to slavery, we really should begin to look at the other restrictions "We Democrats" are ready to impose...for their own good, of course.

We should start by selecting what color burqa's they should be allowed to wear to the Democratic Convention so as not to offend the "middle" that it's soooo important to capture.

Pastels only? Perfect for serving the cold pablum to the conventioneers who will be busy trying to "compromise" the party into an "electable" position like it did at the last one.

[JVS]

111. That would not neutralize the abortion issue.

The largest church in the world, the Roman Catholic Church, has made clear that it views abortion as an abrogation of the fetus' right to live even when done extremely early.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VelmaD]

120. Hey matcom

:loveya:

[RapidCreek]

115. No Consessions to religious extremists, fascists, hate mongers

and those who have no problem with starving babys or mothers. Ever. The reason "we Democrats" are where we are is because of comprimise. Nope, the way out of this hole is to visciously stamp folks like yourself into a greasy spot on the rug, with prejudice....and without exception.

RC

[Cat Atomic]

116. Why don't we just neutralize the issues of labor rights, the

separation of church and state, environmental problems... hey! Why not just neutralize the issue of gay rights by neutralizing all the gays! We win! Yay! But we're Republicans!

[JVS]

117. "Why don't we just neutralize the issues of labor rights"

I thought we did back in 1946 with Taft-Hartley

[Cat Atomic]

142. Yeah, that's true.

I stand corrected.

[Cleita]

118. That's basically what is done already.

That's why this is a wedge issue.

Think about it. How many women with an unwanted pregnancy wait until the last minute to change their minds?

The religious right want to end all abortion. There is no compromise where they are concerned.

[idiosyncratic]

123. A woman is never just "a little bit pregnant"

She is either pregnant or not pregnant.

This is not an issue we can compromise on, and it certainly isn't an issue the other side is going to compromise on!

[juslikagrzly]

125. BULLSHIT! That's my thought eom

[Chef]

130. Abortion

It's not about abortion, gay rights, guns, or moral values. If it were, the RW would have made more progress on these issues. It's about tax cuts, greed, enviroment imperialism and social and economic justice. These "moral" issues are used to play the people who have them as suckers so the RW can win elections.

If you compromise on this just a little in the false hope that you could win elections, there would be some other wedge cause (try soft on crime, commies, etc.) that the RW would hold out there rather than addressing the real issues that face us.

[LizW]

131. We're already there

And the Republicans are already pushing for more. They want the "rights" of the fetus to supersede the rights of the woman. They want to outlaw abortion without regard for any duress to the health of the mother.

Stem cell research? You've heard of this controversy, right? The Republicans place a higher value on a bundle of cells than on living, breathing people who could potentially be saved by this research.

You need to face this fact. The fundamentalist Republicans want to use the power of law to control every aspect of sexuality and reproduction. Caving in and trying to split the issue with them will never work, because their ultimate aim is not to save cute babies, it is to control human sexuality and reproduction.

[Old and In the Way]

132. No, but thanks for playing.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

134. Any post that starts with "we democrats" turns me right around

it never fails

[ScreamingMeemie]

135. No we musn't. And I say this as a women who is, by belief system,

"pro life". What I mean is...I cannot legislate my belief system on another. Period. Point Blank. No Compromise. Or they'll go for more. You know they will.

[dbonds]

138. Ummm, no thanks

Give an inch they take a mile.

[RobinA]

145. How Does Compromising

on abortion neutralize the whole issue? I'm assuming that you understand that the "issue" here is individual rights. Individuals either have rights or they don't.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

146. What is this....

the fourth or fifth thread telling Dems we need to change our stance on Roe v. Wade?

Between the dump the gays threads, the dump abortion threads and now the dump affirmative actions threads, you'd think someone out there was trying to stir the shit pot. :eyes:

[Beer Snob-50]

148. NO comprimise on this topic

instead we must make clear that we don't pull pregnant women off the street and rip their fetuses out of their womb.

[Willy Lee]

149. BULLSHIT!!!

We do not have to give one flipping millimeter. This is not about abortion, it is about A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. I will NOT budge on this issue.

[Booster]

151. You got a mouse in your pocket? What's with the "we".

Not only will I not compromise on abortion, but when Bush and his little merry (old) men make it illegal, I want everyone who the girl confided in, which may include parents, definitely the boyfriend, friends, etc. to be put on trial for conspiracy, abetting, whatever unless they were the ones who turned the girl into to John Ashcroft. We will have a whole lot of people in jail cause I don't think the poor girl should have to go to jail by herself. She didn't cause the problem by herself.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

152. Bullshit.

No.

My mother had an illegal abortion in 1965. She was 17 years old. Her parents took her to a sanitorium in another state and she had to sign a statement saying she would take her own life if she didn't have an abortion.

She was never sure if the woman who performed it was actually a doctor. Or even a nurse.

She nearly died from an infection contracted during the procedure. She had to be taken to the emergency room in her hometown hospital just 24 hours later with a raging fever and unstoppable bleeding.

I was born in 1970. If she had died from that illegal abortion, I would never be here.

No. No no no no no and no.

Let them start putting all that passion and energy into the children who ARE here. Let them start putting all that passion and energy into making the need for abortion RARE by making birth control safe, cheap and easy to access instead of this abstinence only crap they push which DOESN'T WORK.

No.

Never go back to those dark days, never.

[democratreformed]

153. I am afraid you are wrong. They absolutely will not budge except to

outlaw any abortion entirely. That's the message I am getting anyway.

[hlthe2b]

156. I notice that you are male....how easily you relinquish control over a

woman's own body to others.....:eyes:

My compromise? I WON'T HAVE ONE. I don't think I would ever have had one, but I can never be sure because I have never been faced with the choice. Nonetheless, I would always have fought for the right of other women to make that choice.

I'll be damned if I'm going to let the government control my or any other woman's body. Don't men realize that in the best of circumstances pregnancy does carry risk to the mother? Women used to die in childbirth frequently; they still do, albeit less frequently. Do you really think the government should be in a position to REQUIRE a woman to give birth--regardless of circumstances, regardless of personal risk and consequences?

Don't you also realize that women who miscarriage could be placed under the microscope for possible murder accusation or charges? It already happens in some countries where abortion is outlawed.

Maybe if the government were to intervene in determining MEN's reproductive rights, we'd have a different attitude. Then when a handful of women suggest compromises in determining which men get to reproduce and which should be involuntarily sterilized, rather than fighting for your absolute rights to control your own destiny and body, you'd feel a bit differently.........

[Garbo 2004]

157. How do you "compromise" on a Supreme Court decision?

1. First, there's no basis for compromise in what you seemingly propose. (That is, if you're not just jerking people's chains which may indeed be the case.) For those who want to overturn Roe v. Wade it's at the point of conception that the embryo becomes untouchable. Where's the basis for compromise in that?

2. It's a Supreme Court decision, it's not something you split the difference with. The Court decided Roe v. Wade over 30 years ago. Unless I've completely forgotten my Con Law, it can only be overturned or modified by another Supreme Court ruling. Which is why some folks want to pack the Supreme Court and hope for such an opportunity under Bush. Should the Court ever take up the matter again, they won't be taking a poll for our recommendations or concurrence.

While we're solving "sensitive" issues that have been politicized, why not "compromise" on Brown v. Board of Education too? That should solve some of those nagging racial issues we still seem to have these days. And for those who don't recall, for some it was a matter of religious faith (and likely still is for some) that the white race was superior and all others inferior; therefore the "inferior" races were not subject to equal treatment under the law.

"Wedge" issues were so named by the cynical politicians who intentionally use them to divide people in order to attain and retain power. It's more about politics and power than morality. If it were about absolutist morality, being against the taking of human life and ensuring the preservation of life, the "pro lifers" also would be demanding universal health care to insure the health and well being of the children once they're born and everyone else for that matter. As well as demanding an end to the death penalty.

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[3rdParty]

159. Just overturn Roe v Wade from the Feds level...

Let it go back to the states. The Blue states will keep the same law and lets see what the Red states think when they are the only ones that outlaws abortion. I'll bet they'll switch from being 'red' real fast when it becomes a reality ONLY for them!!!

[Castilleja]

160. No

Wrong....just, no.

[Kipepeo]

161. There are no Rights of the Fetus

The moment the Democratic party heads down this slippery slope and indicates they are willing to abandon the rights of women to the rights of the fetus inside of her is the moment I leave the party.

Really - when are we going to stop believing that the way to win is to become more like the assholes we're fighting?

[hangloose]

162. It has nothing to do with a 16 week old fetus it has every thing to

do with keeping the government out of our personal decision making. Do you want someone telling you who you can marry? How does selective breeding sound?

This decision is not up for negotiation. Off the table, Nada bro.

[Ann Arbor Dem]

163. Oh for pete's sake....

Why don't we just all roll over, play dead and let the repukes take over?

:mad: