I am a clear, unambiguous and unapologetic supporter of abortion rights

[Nikki Stone1]

And for keeping the government out of any decision a woman makes about her own health, her own uterus.


There are a lot of us out there. This thread will get unrecs from the RW trolls, paid to curtail the discussion of women's freedoms online, but I am posting this anyway.

Rec if you dare.

[leftstreet]

1. K&R

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

370. Let's keep this thread kicked forever. -nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. I'll stand with you.

[lamp_shade]

3. No question. Big rec from me.

[peacebird]

4. k&r!

[PeaceNikki]

Abortion is a moral and positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, and protects families.

[Nikki Stone1]

7. Couldn't have said it better myself

:patriot:

[PeaceNikki]

It's a quote from one of my very favorite authors Joyce Arthur

A piece called http://choice-joyce.blogspot.com/2007/06/repeal-all-abortion-restrictions.html">Repeal All Abortion Restrictions.

I quote it a lot. I <3 her.

[Nikki Stone1]

11. Thanks for the link!

:)

[Kerrytravelers]

14. I thought I was your favorite author to quote!

:rofl:


And a big K&R from me.

[PeaceNikki]

28. Well, the points you make on this are indeed dead-on with my feelings.

I agree with you about the plastic surgery discussion, too. It's a shame it's always framed as a negative, selfish and vain procedure.

[aquart]

24. And it is nobody's business but the woman's and her doctor.

And the doctor better mind his own business, too.

[Hansel]

194. Yes. I lived a horror story because mine didn't.

He ended up killing my baby when I was over 5 months pregnant. Due to his obsessive religious beliefs he left a Copper 7 IUD in place that ended up perforating the amniotic sac. A concern I voiced to him when I told him to remove it. He refused because it might cause an abortion and that was against his Catholic faith.

Later he refused to acknowledge I was carrying an obviously dead fetus saying that the foul fluid flowing from my body was a period (as did a doctor I went to for a 2nd opinion whom I found out too late was also a Catholic). This resulted in a last resort abortion at planned parenthood after I could no longer urinate or even stand up due to the infection, the results of a situation where my body failed to spontaneously abort. During the abortion I passed out 3 times due to the excruciating pain caused by the infection in my uterus. I ended up in the hospital for nearly 2 weeks due to a massive infection. I was lucky to be there, because the actions of the other 2 would have killed me in addition to already killing my baby.

Make sure you can trust your doctor before you make him or her a part of the decision. Not all of them care more about your health than their extremist religious beliefs. The 2 fools did their Bishop ding-a-ling proud. Disgusting self-absorbed fools.

Thanks to Planned Parenthood and their more medically sound and realistic approach, and their concern for my life, I'm still here and my 2 other children did not end up without a Mother.

[gtar100]

220. That exemplifies the difference between Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Church

Planned Parenthood honors and respects the sanctity of life and the sovereignty of the individual. The Catholic Church does none of that until one first placates to their power and religious laws. Your ordeal must have been incredibly challenging. It's so good you found the right people and made it through. I have nothing to compare. Your story really shows the terrible consequences of misguided beliefs.

[Hekate]

267. Thank the Goddess you are still alive to be your children's mother after that nightmare.

:hug:

Hekate

[intheflow]

44. It's not a choice.

It's a human right. God how I wish we could ditch that market-based description.

[blondeatlast]

46. Very good point; I'll try to remember to use it. nt

[PeaceNikki]

49. It is a choice. We have the right to choose.

We do need to change the rhetoric: Abortion is not a "necessary evil." Abortion is a moral and positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, and protects families.

[intheflow]

53. "Choice" indicates a market mentality.

All women can choose to have abortions--if they can afford it or if its even offered in their area. Rich women will always have the choice. For poor women, it should not be couched in terms of market availability. Abortion needs to be referred to again as a reproductive right, not a reproductive choice. That phraseology waters down the gravity of the right a woman has to control her own body and destiny.

Similarly, think about GLBTQ rights. Are GLBTQs living a lifestyle choice by being gay, or are they embracing their human right to live free and control their own lives? Language matters and the distinction is clear.

[PeaceNikki]

55. OK, when you put it like that...

I agree. :)

[intheflow]

58. .

:hug:

[defendandprotect]

112. While I largely agree with your posts -- if not overwhelmingly agree --

and love your support for women and human rights . . .

"CHOICE" -- in its time -- IMO made clear that each and every woman makes an individual

choice and that no one else -- nor government -- should be barring her from that option.

Perhaps it is time to move on to "human right" -- ?

Something to think about?



:)


EDITED: Just want to add that at the moment much of what we would consider a female's

"Human Rights" are not honored. The Catholic Church, for instance, doesn't acknowledge the

full personhood of females as it acknowledges the full personhood of males!

We did not get an Equal Rights Amendment . . . due to heavily financed campaigns by the

Catholic Church and Mormon Church . . . with tax-exempt dollars.

And certainly women have a human right to equal representation in our government --

that has certainly not been affirmed by our male-dominated government -- we are still absent

Gender Balance laws in America.

Women too should have the Human Right to be free from being targeted as "inferior" by

male-supremacist religions -- or by the propaganda of pornography which is widespread and

which seeks to degrade and deny women equality and human rights.

Women do not have an equal place in society -- in any sphere of it -- to even begin to

influence any part of it.

There must be an increasing demand for the Human Rights of females -- but look at the

condition of females all over the planet -- and the loss of female life -- millions . . .

50 million as recently mentioned?

While there is an absolute necessity for a claim to Human Rights -- I do think that CHOICE

bridged that for us -- and I'm not sure that it has yet outlived its usefulness???

But, I'm still thinking about it -- !!

[intheflow]

128. Pro-choice was coined after Roe v. Wade

around 1975, in direct response to the new, burgeoning, so-called right-to-life movement calling themselves "pro-life". We didn't want to be labeled pro-abortion or pro-death, but we couldn't just stick it out with pro-human rights? We wanted to make it sound unthreatening so they'd back off, and history has proven their slogan in favor of life has been much more successful than our wishy-washy slogan affirming "choice." If given the option between a life and a choice, life easily wins. But given a choice between a life and a human right? Well, that puts it all on even footing suddenly, and I don't think we would have gotten so close to losing this right as we are now.

[defendandprotect]

133. Some differences in thinking on that -- don't think anyone buys "pro-life" . . .

they turned themselves into "pro-life-assassins" and murderers of doctors --

We also have seen the obsession of fanatical fetal fantasy which I think is difficult

for them to hide, but most of us recognize that there is a real live female host involved.

What does get washed over too frequently is their disdain for birth control, in general.

Most people find that hard to believe.

The thrust of all of this comes from organized patriarchal religion --

and we have to head into a counter-attack there more briskly, IMO --

Any suggestion that the Vatican/RCC has anything to do with morality is oxymoronic -- !!


We have the openings in "Pro-Life" Murders --

in sexual abuse of children --

in the Church intrusions into government campaigns, well financed with tax-exempt dollars --

to spread intolerance for homosexuals --

We also have a large opening in that families have long ignored the RCC in issues of family

planning and most use contraception. Not only that but 63% of ALL Catholics and 67% of them

when Latino/Latina are included want Contraception covered in a government health plan!!


Catholic women also have abortions at the same rate that any other women have them.

Essentially the Vatican/RCC has lost this debate -- that's why the violence and secret campaigns.

Also note that Catholics want a government health insurance plan -- 73% and 83% -- !!!

It is the male-supremacist interests that the Bishops represent . . . not the will of Catholics.


Catholics also want private or government insurance coverage for abortion --

including "whenever a woman and her doctor decide it is appropriate" -- 50% and 53%

and including when pregnancy threatens the life of the woman -- 84%/87%
When a pregnancy results from rape or incest -- 76%/80%
When a pregnancy poses long term risks to the woman -- 73%/77%
When tests show the fetus has severe abnormal conditions -- 66%/74%

There is a lot of fakery obviously in patriarchy's use of religion as a political tool --

You might be interested in the two articles below?

GOP gave start up funding in 1980's for Christian Coalition -- other wealthy right wingers --

Scaife, etal -- financed and supported Dobson's organization and others Bauer's organization.

As Cheney was fond of saying, they create the "reality" -- we live it!

--------------------------

This is quoted from my journal --

FIRST PART OF THIS DEALS WITH HOW US/CIA CREATED TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA . . .
TO BAIT RUSSIANS INTO AFGHANISTAN . . .!!!


SECOND PART DEALS WITH THE TEXTBOOKS --



The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_i... ...


---------------------------------------------------

SECOND PART --


The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.


Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.h...

[Helga Scow Stern]

163. You live up to your name....

Thanks for these facts and the analysis of them. Of course people are in favor of deciding about the size of their families.
When I was a student at UCLA many years ago a counselor held a discussion meeting about abortion. She said that by far the biggest issue was that young women whose families strictly disagreed with abortion were the ones getting abortions, with their family's support, of course, because nothing is more disconcerting to a "Christian" family than a wayward daughter. She said that these young women were deeply depressed. The creepiest thing that I will always remember is the male hecklers in the audience. Two men who sat together and tried to embarrass and shame the woman who was speaking.

[liberalmike27]

172. Books to Plant the Seeds of War Profit

And they are being harvested now.

Comments on abortion are spot-on--also, new poor, to feed the churches and wars, have the babies, then we'll ignore them.

Expected in the nineties was the biggest crime-wave ever. It never materialized. Why? The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Read first chapter of first Freakanomics book.

[defendandprotect]

284. Thank you for reading ....

and understanding that information --

I've tried very hard to get it out in dribs and drabs here --

It's an awareness I think we have to have to be able to competently deal with

the "reality" we've been presented with.

I had heard a rumor about the GOP sponsoring the Christian Coalition --

but it only made a small dent at the time in my thinking on the legitimacy of the

right wing religious movement in America. Later, I came by the other info on Scaife -

Dobson's org and Bauer's -- and only about a year ago the other info on violent Islamic

teachings --

I'm still thinking "Wow!" . . .

but, of course, patriarchy has always used religion as a political weapon so don't know

why I'm surprised or shocked???!!!

My instincts told me that most people do not want to be enslaved to patriarchal religion . . .

I should have listened more to myself!

:)

[defendandprotect]

283. Interestng . . .

IMO, we can see from the parental consent laws that it is more important to those

seeking these laws that youth be controlled rather than protected.

Re your UCLA counselor:

I don't think that was generally known, though later there were some hints about it

in TV/movies and in some of the debates. Certainly whatever the Stupak effect, Congress

will have the means of ensuring their own families aren't effected.

"Her-story" only seems to be told in leaks and rumors.

And by some wise and courageous women like your counselor.

C-span a few weeks ago had on a female author who was discussing the missing females all

over the world -- I think at one point she said 50 million. I wasn't able to concentrate

on the interview at the time, but I'll try tonight to run down the book if I can and check

into it.

:)

[JonQ]

264. So, are you not pro-choice?

[intheflow]

305. That's a hell of a leap to make.

I don't like how we've framed the debate so that makes me anti-abortion rights? :wtf:

[JonQ]

317. Saying abortion

is not elective, which in medical terms elective means choice, is saying it is not a choice.

If it isn't a choice then how can proponents be pro-choice? If it is inevitable there is no choice (there aren't a lot of pro-choice protestors for dying, or the sun rising every morning).

Ergo to call yourself pro-choice you must support voluntary abortion rights.

[intheflow]

320. I don't understand what the disconnect is here.

Where do you see in any of my posts anything to indicate I am not in favor of a woman's right to safe and legal abortions?

Or is it that YOU are not pro-choice, hence your insistence on abortion being "elective" surgery, like nose and boob jobs, done for vanity sake alone? Because that's what "elective surgery" means in contemporary, popular culture, outside the medical profession.

[JonQ]

322. We'll start back at the beginning

in medical terminology what does "elective" mean?

[intheflow]

323. Elective always means choice.

In medicine and elsewhere. However, abortion is not always elective. Most of the times it's sought, it's a life-saving necessity.

And no one but the woman gets to decide what's a life-saving necessity. That includes women who decide to abort for financial reasons instead of medical reasons, if she deems it life-saving for her life.

Women are fully realized, sentient beings, capable of judging what is best for their own lives, even if those decisions are deemed not good reasons by other people. Abortion is RIGHT not a choice.*

*And don't even get me started on how millions of women across the country don't have "choice" now because there are no affordable abortion providers in their state, let alone within an easy commute. So once again, the use of "choice" fails American women who need abortions.

[JonQ]

324. "Elective always means choice."

So then it is the correct term.

"However, abortion is not always elective."

Which implies that at least some of the times it *is* elective, no?

"Most of the times it's sought, it's a life-saving necessity."

I've never seen any evidence that the majority of abortions are due to a direct threat to the survival of the mother. The majority seem to be elective, not life-saving.

"And no one but the woman gets to decide what's a life-saving necessity."

Ok here's where the confusion is. Elective doesn't mean it isn't up to you. We don't prevent people from getting other elective procedures and only tolerate immediate life saving ones. In fact no one but the person involved gets any say in elective surgeries, so why would this be different? If hypothetically you wanted a nose job, would I get to say no? Well yeah I guess I could say that but would it have any impact?

"That includes women who decide to abort for financial reasons instead of medical reasons, if she deems it life-saving for her life."

You could make the same argument for cosmetic surgery. That it is essential for the person to have a reasonable life. But that is not what doctors would call life saving, rather they would deem it elective.

People seem to equate declaring abortions that aren't life threatening as elective with trying to ban them. What other elective surgeries are banned? This seems irrational paranoia to me. Abortions that aren't done to save the womans life are elective, and that's fine with me. No one should have a say in it other than her. It should be private, legal and not subject to a popular vote just *like every other elective surgery*.

[TCJ70]

326. That's pretty much how I see it...

...when it comes to the term elective and abortion. It's amazing to me that things have blown up this much.

[intheflow]

328. Society sits in judgement on a woman

by calling abortions elective. You're saying she can choose what life she wants to lead, as opposed to her feeling compelled to make a decision to save her life. There are many cases of plastic surgery where I could see this as being true, such as burn victims or car crash victims.

However, I make the point again that "elective" surgery indicates a market mentality. You can only choose it if you can afford it. The argument in favor of a woman's right to abortion was based in part on poor women who were "electing" to give themselves abortions, or "electing" to go where they could afford to go, back rooms with rusty knives. That's the life we're seeking to save--we want access to safe, legal and affordable abortions if a woman needs one. That's what makes abortion different from plastic surgery. Few burn victims would attempt to do plastic surgery on themselves. Women faced with an unwanted pregnancy? They'll attempt to abort themselves.

[JonQ]

329. It's not a judgement call

it's merely the correct usage of the term. If it is a medical procedure not done strictly to save a life then it is elective. That is just the definition.

"There are many cases of plastic surgery where I could see this as being true, such as burn victims or car crash victims. "

And yet those are called elective as well. Not because we hate those people, but because that is an accurate term. If it's done as a quality of life improvement rather than a necessity then it is elective.

"
However, I make the point again that "elective" surgery indicates a market mentality."

Much of this opposition to the accurate use of a word seems to come from some inferred alterior motive.

"You can only choose it if you can afford it."

True of any elective surgery.

"The argument in favor of a woman's right to abortion was based in part on poor women who were "electing" to give themselves abortions, or "electing" to go where they could afford to go, back rooms with rusty knives. That's the life we're seeking to save--we want access to safe, legal and affordable abortions if a woman needs one. "

No one on here is talking about making them illegal, moot point.

"That's what makes abortion different from plastic surgery. Few burn victims would attempt to do plastic surgery on themselves. Women faced with an unwanted pregnancy? They'll attempt to abort themselves."

I doubt they will make the decision to do it themselves based on whether or not we call it elective.

[intheflow]

331. You are being purposefully obtuse.

What part of "safe, legal, and affordable" don't you get with regards to market mentality and framing?

[JonQ]

332. The price

and it being elective are too separate issues.

I don't recall anyone arguing that it should be made more expensive because it is elective.

True/false; surgeries that individuals choose are called "elective".

[intheflow]

333. No one is saying it's accessible and affordable to women today!

As for "elective surgeries." I am no expert on medical terminology, so I consulted Merium-Webster to see if "elective" was synonymous with choice. Here's what Mssrs. Merium and Webster have to say on the subject:

Main Entry: elec·tive
Pronunciation: \i-ˈlek-tiv\
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1531

1 a : chosen or filled by popular election <an elective official> b : of or relating to election c : based on the right or principle of election <the presidency is an elective office>


2 a : permitting a choice : optional <an elective course in school> b : beneficial to the patient but not essential for survival <elective surgery>


3 a : tending to operate on one substance rather than another <elective absorption> b : favorably inclined to one more than to another : sympathetic <an elective affinity>

— elec·tive·ly adverb
— elec·tive·ness noun

This is what I'm arguing. Who determines what is "essential to survival" for anyone else? If a woman has three children under 5, finds herself pregnant again and knows if she has another child she and her now four children will be homeless? Yes, if one only counts the physical body functioning as "survival," then yes, they're synonymous. But if you take the whole person and situation into consideration--something western medicine (and culture in general) have only recently started considering--the word survival can be interpreted in may different ways.

Well, I'm done with this sub-thread. You obviously don't get it, or you're just arguing the point pointlessly.

[JonQ]

341. To interpret it that way

is to render the term meaningless (if the patient decides she wants it then it is essential for her life). There is a reason words have definite meanings. And it isn't to oppress women and ban abortions.

[dwnorman]

343. It's elective

Why does it bother you so much if someone does not agree with you? If you choose to declare abortions as "life saving" then, fine! Why get so bent out of shape when someone else chooses to see it more clinically and term it elective?

One of the problems in society today is they people take it upon themselves to re-appropriate the language. Then we get in spats because folks are using different meanings for words when all the time they were really in agreement. And that is what is going on here.

[intheflow]

344. You've never heard of "framing a debate"?

That's my issue. I think the repro rights movement framed their side of the debate poorly. And English is a flexible language whose words are constantly being defined and redefined to reflect societal usage.

Here's another example: is it global warming, or global climate change? Originally the climate debate was framed as global warming because the planet is, in fact, getting warmer. But that had to change when climate deniers would point to any given location's colder-than-normal temps in any given year (or in some cases, in any given single storm) and say, "See?!? There's no truth to global warming! It's cold today!!" So the left re-framed the debate by calling the continual warming and subsequent disasterous weather fall-out global climate change. That phrase takes into account that the global climate is changing but will not always manifest itself with desert-like consequences, but will be more likely to manifest itself with severe weather events. Voila! Issue reframed and refocused. That's what I'm hoping for with the repro rights movement.

[defendandprotect]

109. Agree . . . .

and which is counter to the interests of male-supremacist religions

which seek to control women and reproduction --



:evilgrin:

[fasttense]

169. Great quote but I would add, it elevates us above the animals.

We become less controlled and manipulated by our own biology. We gain control over our own bodies and can decide when, where, and how to bring life to this planet.

[UnseenUndergrad]

273. Well...

except for deer... and scorpions... who can reabsorb their own embryos in times of shortage.

Perhaps it's better to differentiate amongst the apes and leave it at that.

Look.. I (as a male)went throught the catholic school system, and even then, when i was being walked though horrific, graphic and probably fictional descripions of "partial birth" abortions, I regarded the whole thing as a "neccesary evil" at the very worst and merely a neccesity in the case of Life-and-death situations, rape, incest and etc. Though I always wondered why an anesthetic wasn't adminsitered first simply on the grounds of medical ethics.

But after 5 years of University, I've realized that really, as a neccesary medical procedure, morality doesn't enter into it (except for the women's views, of course). Although abortion-as-is-commonly-imagined is probably a buit too intrusive and expensive as a regular form of birth control, I have no problem with regular use of Plan B and the various Pills are a complete non-issue.

On the other hand, when people begin being merely "pro abortion", forget the choosing aspect and advocate horrific "one-child-policy" totalitarian clusterfarks... I don't know, it just grinds my cookies.

--Unseen "this close to going liberal anglican" Undergrad

[dwnorman]

342. Saves lives??

I can give you the rest; we're all entitled to our own opinions. Tell me, please, how abortion saves lives? And what does "Rec" mean?

[Scout]

345. saves the pregnant woman's life...

"rec" means recommended.

welcome to DU, i think.

[PeaceNikki]

350. Seriously?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,975246,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/24/opinion/l-legal-abortion-saves-women-s-lives-622508.html

Also it is safer than giving birth, by a ratio of 0.7 to 8.

[sarge43]

368. Do you know what an ectopic pregnancy is?

If you don't, you shouldn't involve yourself in any debate about abortion.

Because you're a newbie, I'll help you out. An ectopic pregnancy is one where the fertilized ovum implants outside of the uterus. If the ovum continues to grow, it will rupture an organ such as the fallopian tube and kill the woman within hours. Whenever the condition is diagnosed, an abortion is performed to save a woman's life .

[EFerrari]

5. K&R

[emulatorloo]

6. + 1 with all my heart

Rec

[ruggerson]

8. Right there with you

Thanks. Recommended.

[snagglepuss]

9. Count me in . nt

[MineralMan]

10. I'm with you, 100%.

[GoneOffShore]

12. Count me in.

Abortion is between a woman and her doctor.

[StarfarerBill]

13. With you and all pro-choicers.

[frazzled]

15. Ditto

I'm tired of people having to apologize for this basic right, or couch it in regretful tones ("of course, it's a terrible thing").

If you don't want an abortion, that is certainly your right, and I respect it. Don't get one. But stay out of my life and don't tell me what to do.
I am fortunate that I never had to have an abortion myself, but I distinctly recall a time in my life--married, in my 30s, with two small children (one with a disability, the other a screaming handful)--when I absolutely knew I could not handle another child: emotionally, physically, financially. I vowed to myself that if we were to get pregnant again, I would have an abortion. I felt another child would be a burden not just to ourselves, but to the two beautiful, but challenging, children I already had.

ON EDIT: I never had to follow up on that vow, because I did not get pregnant again. But I refuse to say, "Thank god I didn't have to make that choice." I would have done it with no regrets.

[tigereye]

16. yup, you will get no argument here!

:thumbsup: Why do we always have to keep defending something that is legal and our business? :banghead:

[Hepburn]

17. I stand with you, Nikki...

...a woman is NOT a 2nd class citizen to a fetus.

:hi:

[xrdan]

18. a scenario

A woman is headed across town to have a late term abortion. At the gas station a scumbag decides he wants her SUV and carjacks her. She resists and he shoots her in the abdomen. She survives but the baby dies. The shooter is later caught and the DA charges him with murder, among other things.

My point is that you can't have it both ways. If she had made it 3 more blocks to the clinic and had an abortion no one would have been charged with murder. A pregnancy terminated by a bullet is murder, but if it had been done a few minutes later with instruments it would have been OK?

[Lucian]

32. Gee...

I wonder if this is a troll?

:eyes:

[MH1]

36. Gee, I wonder.

(not really :) )

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

192. His other post, from a grand total of 2, is the same text.

Five weeks ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6846806#6854315

[Hekate]

265. Well, at least it's a consistent little troll, isn't it? Post and run, never sticks around ...

... to read OR learn anything.

Thanks for finding that earlier post, which is word for word the same as this one. Next time I'll just alert the mods and not waste my time replying.

Hekate

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

268. But replying has a good side.

You can come back later through "My Posts" and enjoy the tombstone.

[EFerrari]

37. LOL

What are you, 12?

[MH1]

40. Easy. It's assault, not murder.

The woman didn't ask to charge the guy with murder, the DA just did it (in your scenario), probably because he's an anti-woman right winger who wants embryos and fetuses to be given the rights of persons. Or maybe just because his state legislature is full of anti-woman right wingers who passed a law that said he had to charge with murder in that case. Either way it is a right wing manipulation of the legal system to try to give fetuses the rights of persons. With the end goal that the life of the fetus may take precedence over the life of the mother.

[Hekate]

62. And that's the truth. It's assault against the woman; the murder charge is to make a fetus a person

... with rights superior to hers.

Hekate

[MH1]

174. Technically it would be attempted murder, as someone pointed out below

and also as many others pointed out below, the scenario doesn't make any sense for a late-term abortion.

However the right wingers will first play the murder card with "late-term abortion" then quietly pull the adjective and make it ANY abortion. Then at some point they will replay the "can't have it both ways" argument, as a way to make all abortion illegal.

We don't WANT it both ways.

[Hekate]

263. That's exactly right. They make a travesty of someone's personal tragedy...

... which I find disgusting.

Hekate

[JonQ]

266. I don't disagree but. ..

in some states, where abortion is legal, it would be considered murder.

Not a perfect example but: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25065836/

Tiffany Hall, 26, pleaded guilty to all five charges against her — four counts of murder and one count of intentional homicide in the death of the fetus — and was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

- - - -

Homicide means killing a human being. Seems to be a contradiction then to charge someone with homicide for killing a fetus and allow abortion. (obviously she has enough charges against her for the other murders, there's no doubt she's guilty, but including the fetus in the sentencing as a homicide raises questions).


As a caveat I am entirely in favor of abortion being legal and no one elses business. But this is a bit of a legal dilemma. Obviously you shouldn't be free to kill other peoples fetuses against their will, but defining such an act as murder requires the recognition legally of those fetuses as human beings.

I don't know the proper answer to this quandary, but it is a fair question to ask.

[blondeatlast]

48. I reply with an odd reference regarding what choice of tioppings you prefer

on your vaguely Italian influenced pastry...

[Hekate]

63. I chime in with a request for more butter on my popcorn

:popcorn:

[MH1]

173. I think this one is looking for the very slow baked variety

probably screwed up with such a giveaway post.

[shadesofgray]

51. Wow, your compassion for the woman who was shot is just remarkable.

Typical RW troll - the woman doesn't even exist to you, it's all about the fetus.

[elehhhhna]

77. because the WOMAN chooses to bear a child or not. What part don't you understand?

THE WOMAN DECIDES, period. Not the carjacker, not the Congressman, not the Pope, not you and your little friends. THE WOMAN.

[Sparkly]

85. You're kidding, right?

First, it's not legal in any state I know of to hop in your SUV and drive across town to have a late term abortion just cause you want to. Late term abortions are not legal except in certain very limited circumstances.

Second, it's a very real danger for people to equate assault with murder and from there assign Constitutional rights to fetuses. So this "scenario" reeks with rightwing rhetorical "logic."

Third, it's a woman's right to choose safe, legal abortion. That doesn't mean it's a man's right to assault her and thereby end her pregnancy. The two are quite separate. Conversely, the fact that it's wrong for a man to assault a woman doesn't mean it's equally wrong for a woman to make a legal choice about her own uterus.

Get it?

:eyes:

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[AwakeAtLast]

95. An (obvious) answer

No one can "head across town" to have a late term abortion. She isn't going to the Quicki-Mart for a soda. :eyes:

Late term abortions are almost always done because there is a major problem with either the mother, the child or both. They are not routine procedures and are very dangerous. No one has one just because they feel like it.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

The woman would still have the right to change her mind in the examination room

That right would have been taken from her by said scumbag.

Nevermind as others have pointed out, your scenario doesn't really exist in reality as far as late term abortions.

[defendandprotect]

115. First, late term abortions must be approved . . .

Second, it would have been the woman's choice to end the pregnancy for whatever reasons . . .

and not the assailant's CHOICE . . .

However, again, this is more right wing frou frou similar to "PARTIAL TRUTH ABORTION" --

[demigoddess]

126. It was murder because it was not the mother's choice. And I doubt very much if

they have repealed the laws on assault. Anti abortion people always bring up such a scenario but it is invalid as it is violence perpetrated against people and it would be the equivalent of shooting someone with cancer. The person might have been able to beat the cancer and the woman might have changed her mind and medical doctors are charged not to do harm. A bullet is harm. survivable or not.

[AlbertCat]

138. a scenario

A stupid scenario too...

The Dr is not going to try to kill the woman, but instead safely perform the procedure she has asked for and is necessary and has a legal right to and probably (if it's late term) to save her life. The clinic has done everything to make her as safe as possible. The carjacker killed for a stupid SUV.

And we can all make up bad movie plots all day, just like you. They have nothing to do with a woman's right to choose and have control over her own body. Anyone who can't understand the difference is an idiot.

[juno jones]

144. And say you are on an ocean liner

and you are a practicing catholic and you are supposed to be fasting for lent, but then the ship crosses the international date line and it's a day ago! Then what?

With thanks to George Carlin.

[unabelladonna]

146. it was NOT murder

the monster ATTEMPTED to murder the woman. in my book fetii (fetuses) are not equal nor are they persons.

[alittlelark]

147. I actually feel sorry for you - brainwashing is brutal

I know you will not be here long - but I have 4 family members who used to think like you 15-20 years ago.

They (w/ other family members help) were able to rub a few brain cells together.

[Hekate]

158. In case you still don't get it: a late term abortion is dangerous for the woman...

... who is probably being transported by another person, possibly even in an ambulance because of being sick. Or maybe she's already in the hospital. It is surgery, and the life being saved is her own.

It is a rare procedure.

Or perhaps the fetus is already dying or will die shortly after birth, painfully. If you've never heard of anencephaly I recommend this site to you:
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/anencephaly/anencephaly.htm
> Infants with this disorder are born without a forebrain (the front part of the brain) and a cerebrum (the thinking and coordinating part of the brain). The remaining brain tissue is often exposed--not covered by bone or skin. A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain. Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a rudimentary brain stem, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness. Reflex actions such as breathing and responses to sound or touch may occur. >snip<
The prognosis for babies born with anencephaly is extremely poor. If the infant is not stillborn, then he or she will usually die within a few hours or days after birth. >snip<

Here's some video links, but be warned, these are very graphic images.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlCGRbQELNs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ksN4BZmTcc&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hQHLJTGdTU

I watched them with the sound off (it's in the middle of the night here) so I don't know what the voice-over text is, except that the longest one turns out to be a Christian pro-life video -- it's also the most graphic in terms of what the babies are. Yes, there are women who for religious reasons will carry such an infant to term if it doesn't spontaneously miscarry -- but most cannot bear to. I support them all.

Anencephaly is only one of the many things that can go fatally or near-fatally wrong with a developing fetus. Something like a cleft palate can be fixed -- a missing brain cannot.

You need to educate yourself about the real world instead of inventing scenarios. The women involved are real, and their grief over their situation is heartrending. You don't get to the third trimester in a pregnancy without bonding with the being inside you, and you don't just up and decide to drive to the abortionist one fine day. Your invented scenario trivializes their pain.

Hekate

[slackmaster]

188. That's right - The shooter would be charged with MURDER in my state. The law is clear.

From the California Penal Code:

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

HTH

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

191. Neither. Captain Marvel saves the woman.

Since the scenario of a woman "going across town to have a late term abortion" (driving what, the Cadillac she got from welfare?) is just as plausible.

[tekisui]

291. That is some of the dumbest shit I've ever read.

Did the woman choose to be shot in the gut?

[Name removed]

302. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stray cat]

19. ok

[Greyhound]

20. I dare. K&R

Where the hell do we live, now?

Democrats used to have a (very) few convictions, but even the most basic of these are for sale anymore.

[DesertFlower]

21. K&R. IMO no one (not even her husband)

has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body.

[Hissyspit]

22. I stand with you, too.

Rec'd

[aquart]

23. It's not that brave a deal. We won't go to jail for recommending.

[havocmom]

29. a lot of us have done/do more than just rec-ing

;)

[Bluenorthwest]

25. Me too

I've defended a clinic or two in my younger and snappier years. If men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament, they used to say. So I'll say it now. Because it is true.

[Pushed To The Left]

41. Very true about if men became pregnant

If men could get pregnant, there would be no so-called "pro life" movement.

[BrklynLiberal]

101. If men could become pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

I heard that a long time ago..did not make it up myself.

[JonQ]

269. A bit sexist don't you think?

And there are women who oppose abortions as well. It's religious and emotional thing, not a male vs. female thing.

Frankly I know plenty of guys who would be quite happy helping their girlfriends get an abortion if it came to that. That's substantially cheaper than 18 years of childsupport.

Oddly enough, evil selfish men who only care about themselves and their ability to fornicate freely and without responsibility (right?) have set up and enforce laws requiring other males to "man up" and provide for the children they sire.

[BrklynLiberal]

102. oops. Did not read your post when I posted. Same great quote.

[Lugnut]

26. I dare.

K&R

[Tansy_Gold]

27. I dared

x

[tekisui]

30. Agreed 100%.

[Lucian]

31. #51

[katandmoon]

33. K&R!

[LaydeeBug]

34. damn right. nt

[MNDemNY]

35. With you. Any "stupak -like language" should kill any "HCR" bill.

[Pushed To The Left]

38. K&R!!

[TCJ70]

39. That's great!

Now stop demonizing people who feel the same way as you in other threads.

[catzies]

110. What you are calling "demonizing," I respectfully call "firmly educating."

The time has passed for soft language when words which mean things are used to deliberately obfuscate and miseducate.

I thought Nikki did a fine job in demonstrating better and more accurate framing and accurately pointed out the failings in the "elective" framing in the "how many is too many" thread.

That, and many other things she has said extremely well on this issue, on which I agree with her and many others 100%.

[MH1]

42. Right there with you. I am pro-abortion. When the woman chooses it.

[tomm2thumbs]

43. 100%!!!

[blondeatlast]

45. Proud to join and RECOMMEND. nt

[shadesofgray]

47. K&R. I am very vocal about my support for abortion rights, and I

will not vote for any candidate who is not pro-choice.

I would no more vote for an anti-choice dem than I would vote for an anti-choice repug.

[Rising Phoenix]

50. I am with you Nikki

too late to Rec but I would

[snake in the grass]

52. Rec from me. n/t

[Chorophyll]

54. Rec'd!

[peace frog]

56. Sign me up

Right there with you.

[Hekate]

57. I support my sisters with my heart, voice, time, money, and marching shoes as I have for 40 years...

The youngsters out there have no idea what they are about to lose. Just no idea.

Hekate

[bertman]

59. Rec from someone who remembers well the days of back-alley abortions and coat hangers.

Makes me shudder to think that anyone would try to push the clock back to that time.

[Nikki Stone1]

65. They're trying....

We need to stop them. And that includes politicians and the churches they pleasure.

[defendandprotect]

119. True . . . dangerous times for women -- their lives meant little in a male-dominated

world -- and even less in the eyes of male-dominated religions --

Few understand that the number of abortions doesn't change --

the only way it would change is when we improve contraception --

Half the unwanted pregnancies go forward -- so that is a big number which the

right wing wants to hold onto. Improved birth control could wipe those pregnancies/births out.

The only difference is whether abortion is going to be legal or illegal --

This also prompted me to begin to think about the many places where parental laws are in

effect and where so many women's clinics have been attacked and closed. I'm wondering how

many young girls might have some stories to tell us which we aren't hearing.

I can't believe that Becky Bell would have been the last casualty of parental laws restricting

the right to abortion??

[bertman]

129. Excellent points, defendandprotect.

[waiting for hope]

60. K&R with solidarity.

:yourock:

[SidDithers]

61. You had to go and spoil a perfectly good post...

with your silly comments about unrec.

You need to stop obsessing about what people think of your opinions.

Sid

[Nikki Stone1]

64. So did you unrec it?

:rofl:

[SidDithers]

75. As a matter of fact, I did...

because I'm sick and tired of paranoid whining about the use of pefectly legitimate DU feature. That bullshit about unrec, IMO, made an otherwise good post unworthy of appearing on DU's Greatest.

Obviously, others disagree, and I'm sure you'll be happy to see the high score your post recieves.



Sid

Edit: spelling

[Nikki Stone1]

84. The fact, Sid, that you would unrec a political position you believe in because of your emotions

means that you deserve the honors of Sally. You let your own emotional reactions get the better of you on an issue. :cry: :cry: :cry:

[SidDithers]

96. I can believe in a position, and support it...

and at the same time, feel that a particular post is not worthy of Greatest. If your post had ended after stating your opinion about abortion, I would have enthusiastically rec'd it. But you had to sully your excellent message with extraneous crap.

I've said my piece. I won't hijack your thread any further.

Sid

[Nikki Stone1]

97. Next time, when you believe in a position and support it, don't let your emotions get in the way.

It's silly.

And when you read, make sure you understand what is aimed at you personally and what isn't:

"This thread will get unrecs from the RW trolls, paid to curtail the discussion of women's freedoms online"

Unless you're a paid, right wing troll, this wasn't directed at you. Or at any DUer for that matter. Or at the unrec feature in general.



See what happens when the emotions override your cerebral functions?

:dunce:

[SidDithers]

99. If mine was a vote in Congress, which actually affected the lives of real people...

then I would overlook your silliness, and do the right thing.

But we're talking about a post on an internet message board. Nothing in the real world is going to change because I don't like the way you expressed your opinion.

And what you've implied, with "This thread will get unrecs from the RW trolls, paid to curtail the discussion of women's freedoms online", is that anyone who unrecs your precious thread, for any reason, is a RW troll paid to curtail discussions of women's freedom. And that's why I unrec'd the thread, because you're assigning a malicious motive to DU'ers who are simply using one of the board features available to all of us.

Really, hijack over now. Carry on with your good intentions.

Sid

[rd_kent]

294. You should take your own advice then.

Next time, when you believe in a position and support it, don't let your emotions get in the way. The same could be applied to you and you including the part about unrec. Get it now?

[rd_kent]

292. Wow, how did a point like that fly right over your head?

He did not unrec your political position, he unrec'ed because you whined about people unrec'ing.

[rd_kent]

290. Winner! Winner! Winner!!!!!

[Cary]

66. We do need to keep ths message out there.

Thanks, and FTR I too am a clear, unambiguous and unapologetic supporter of abortion rights.

[Nikki Stone1]

68. I'm actually amazed at the response.

Especially considering what I have seen on this board of late. I guess DU HAS been infested by RW antichoice trolls as of late.

[defendandprotect]

122. Yes . . .

over the holidays it has become highly noticeable . . .

Time on their hands --

[Guilded Lilly]

67. Sounds pretty damn clear to me!

There ARE a lot of us out here, there and everywhere.

The Government/men should have no right to declare control over women's bodies any more than women do over men.

I cherish, applaud and embrace the masses of grand men who support and understand the need for women to have control over their own bodies and health; to the others, until you have BEEN a woman, you will never truly get the emotions attached to this right, pro or con, or how damn hard it is to be taken seriously or sometimes become obsesseed with the patronization and scolding/blame/finger pointing/disrespect we get continuously from people who want to rip that very basic right away from us.

Bravo Nikki. BRAVO!

[Yes We Did]

69. What about those who use it as a form of birth control?

Are you fine with that too?

[toadzilla]

70. hate to break it to you

but by definition, abortion is a form of birth control.

[PeaceNikki]

71. I started this thread just for you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7162261

We can trust women to exercise their sensible moral judgment; we can trust doctors to exercise their professional medical judgment, and that’s all we need to regulate the process. Any attempts to restrict access to full reproductive care are injecting religious beliefs into health decisions. It's a frightening precedent to set and should be of concern to everyone.

[Vattel]

150. Why say obviously false things in defense of your beliefs?

"Any attempts to restrict access to full reproductive care are injecting religious beliefs into health decisions." Obviously false. Some seek to restrict access to abortion for ethical reasons and not religious reasons.

"We can trust women to exercise their sensible moral judgment." Obviously flase. Women, like men, often do not exercise sensible moral judgment. That's one reason we have a criminal justice system.

[PeaceNikki]

162. This is about medical decisions. Health care.

Which medical decisions that men make are we trying to restrict/regulate/criminalize?

I stand by every word: We can trust women to exercise their sensible moral judgment; we can trust doctors to exercise their professional medical judgment, and that’s all we need to regulate the process. Any attempts to restrict access to full reproductive care are injecting religious beliefs into health decisions. It's a frightening precedent to set and should be of concern to everyone.

[Vattel]

166. People often make medical decisions that aren't sensible.

Some medical decisions made by men are restricted/regulated/criminalized (e.g., decisions about euthanasia)

[PeaceNikki]

170. So you're saying that you support restrictions on women's reproductive rights?

[Vattel]

177. No

but I do support restrictions on the reproductive rights of that creature that accompanies your posts.

[Helga Scow Stern]

165. Right on Nikki! n/t

[Guilded Lilly]

73. Yes

A woman should have control over the choices she makes with her body and reproductive health.

[pipi_k]

74. My opinion, if I may....

I feel a bit uncomfortable with abortion being used as a form of birth control...not from any moral standpoint, but because it gives the RW crazies justification (in their minds, anyway) for opposing it.

Although I suspect that perhaps many RWers think any use of abortion is probably "birth control", no matter how responsibly the decision is made by the woman involved.

In any case, it's not their business, and it's none of mine. Better that, than unwanted children...

:shrug:

[Chan790]

76. Yes, I am.

Unequivocally.

[shadesofgray]

80. That their business. Even to say I'm "fine" with it would be judging them on something that is

simply nobody's busines but theirs because it's not UP to me to be fine with it or not. But that's just what you are trying to do - you are judging women who've had abortions, and trying to get others to judge them.

[Sparkly]

91. I suggest you not "use it as a form of birth control" if you aren't "fine with that" yourself.

Personally, I don't know any woman who thinks, "Nah, it's just as easy to get an abortion later if I have to," as if she were saying, "Nah, no time to try it on here but if it doesn't fit at home, I can always take it back."...

Are there men who think that way? "Don't worry baby, let's do it -- you can get an abortion later..." I don't believe I've met any men like that, either.

The point is, there aren't people out there who need the superior judgment of others to tell them not to take abortion as lightly as a condom equivalent. And if there ARE, they've got a lot more problems going on than this one.

:eyes:

[Odin2005]

94. So what? It's none of your fucking business.

Oh, I get it, you think women should be punished for having sex. :puke:

[BrklynLiberal]

103. Very eloquently put.

:thumbsup: :hi: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Odin2005]

108. Thank you!

:evilgrin:

[defendandprotect]

105. I think that's all of Japan . .. and the point is, however it occurred it's an unwanted

pregnancy --

No nation has 100% foolproof, user-friendly birth control --

Are you prepared to FORCE women to go forth with an unwanted pregnancy?

And how would you do that?

:eyes: :eyes:

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

111. What I'm "fine" with and what is legal are two different things

Everyone makes their own bed to lie in.

[noamnety]

118. This abortion as birth control argument is beyond absurd.

The most intrusive and absolute form of birth CONTROL is to force someone to give birth against their will.

[defendandprotect]

124. BRAVO . . . !!!

:) :) :) :) :)

[AwakeAtLast]

130. Well said

:thumbsup:

[woo me with science]

181. How or why on earth

would you consider the US GOVERNMENT to be the best arbiter in a decision like this?????????

Seriously now.

[SallyMander]

184. EARTH TO BOZOS: IT *IS* BIRTH CONTROL

What does this inane argument even mean???? Do you mean women may use abortion as a form of CONTRACEPTION? If so, that doesn't make any sense either. There are two pertinent events in the situation: (1) sperm meets egg, i.e., fertilization. Contraception precludes fertilization, thus, abortion can't be used as a contraceptive; (2) kid is born, i.e., birth. Abortion prevents birth, thus it could be considered a means of... CONTROLLING BIRTH.

GAWD, people, take TWO SECONDS to think about what these $#%@ing STUPID right-wing memes ACTUALLY MEAN, before just spouting them off!!!

[tekisui]

293. Yes. jeezus.

Many women use it when their first form of birth control fails. And, so the fuck what. It is about choice not about your judgment.

[rd_kent]

295. I'm fine with it, are you?

[verdalaven]

72. K&R!

[a la izquierda]

78. K & Freakin' R

You DARE and try to take my rights away and I will fight you tooth and nail. That's what we're doing here in Oklahoma, fighting HB 1595.

[Politicub]

79. I stand with you

No compromises. The abortion restrictions as part of the healthcare reform bills are an outrage.

[malaise]

81. +1

Rec

[musette_sf]

82. K&R

[spanone]

83. k&r

[DeSwiss]

86. Same here!

- K&R

[me b zola]

87. K&R

[Stinky The Clown]

89. Brava!

[varelse]

90. I'm with you

[rosesaylavee]

92. Yes.

I support Roe v Wade which is now settled law despite what the trolls and nuts would have you believe otherwise.

[Odin2005]

93. K&R!!! Abortion is a medical procedure, period.

The government has no right to say which abortions it should or should not pay for, it is a violation of a woman's privacy and it results in the re-victimization of survivors of rape and incest. The rape aspect of the Stupak Amendment is also ambiguous, social conservatives will be able to enforce it in such a way that a rape victim would have to prove she was raped in court, and by that time the baby would be born or she would of paid for the abortion out of her own pocket.

[dye]

98. me, too.

darn skippy. no apologies.

[BrklynLiberal]

100. K&R K&R K&R K&R K&R K&R K&R K&R K&R K&R K&R K&R K&R K&R

[defendandprotect]

104. Me, too ---

[winyanstaz]

106. K & R...dang right I dare :)

Get the governments' nose out of women's wombs now!

[glinda]

107. Me too! Want a law prohibiting Pro-Lifers from stem cell research benefits.

:think: :think: :think:

[ismnotwasm]

113. Hell yes

My uterus, my business.

[we can do it]

114. I am totally with you on this

[Helga Scow Stern]

116. I stand with you unequivocally. How dare a government

tell a woman what children to have.
There is no argument about this whatsoever.
If the posers who stand against it were there with college scholarships, warm bassinettes, a healthy, accepting community, just maybe it would be a different story. But nothing like this is happening.
There is absolutely no reason to bring souls into a world that is not ready for them.
End of story. This is an ancient rite, right. Let anyone who foolishly stands against it stand with open arms, a welcoming home, a full scholarship to a valued life, full health care coverage,
Yes, do that, and then maybe mothers might reconsider. But until you self-righteous sons of bitches open your homes without reservation to the unwanted unborn, be quiet about what should be.

[Union Yes]

117. Me too! knr

[Tumbulu]

120. Me too, thanks for the post! (nt)

[ellaydubya]

121. Sign me up!!

These difficult choices must be one's own- that's all I have to say.

[suffragette]

123. I stand with you

K&R

[defendandprotect]

125. K&R --

[pleah]

127. K&R ME, TOO!

:toast:

to add: I'd a been pissed if I had missed this post! I dare! I dare!

[libnnc]

131. K&R

:kick:

[DIKB]

132. It disgusts me when repukes rant about Big Govt

only referring to govt programs, then accept all the intrusions into our personal lives like wiretapping, banning marriages, discrimination, and women's rights.

Abortion is a hard decision that is for the woman to make, no one should take that from her, or make it for her.

[Iggo]

134. I gave this thread an Unrec just on GP.

I'm with ya on the abortion thing, though.

[donheld]

136. WTF?

:banghead:

[Iggo]

137. Hey, she asked for it.

I just couldn't resist the dare.

[Omaha Steve]

135. We live about 5 minutes from Doctor LeRoy Carhart's abortion clinic

We were there a few months ago and had way more pro choice supporters (from 17 or so states) than the anti crowd could get to show up.

K&R!

[femrap]

139. Let me K and R this w/

100% agreement. My body, my freedom. My liberty, my destiny.

Boyz need to concern themselves with their sperm and where it goes....that is their responsibility.

They worry about their sperm and women will will worry about their uteri.

Sperm needs to be controlled! How about that?

[juno jones]

140. I was raised to be a feminist.

My cultural heroes are feminists.

When I got pregnant with my first, I called home crying, unsure of what to do.

My grandmother (a christian in the real sense of the term) said, "It is your descision. Babies are always welcome in the family no matter the circumstance, but if you choose other options, we will support you all the way."

And they did.

Why can't the rest of the world be like that?

[unabelladonna]

141. absolutely!

as someone who "came of age" in the 60's and early 70's, i remember the absolute terror at the thought of getting pregnant and not be able to get a safe abortion in the US (although there was always "someone who knew someone". thank the higher power it's still legal.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

142. Defeat Stupak. Overturn Hyde. Choice without access is meaningless. nt

[brewens]

143. Somebody's gotta say it!

When some girl with nothing going for her screws up and the father is a complete loser and she has an abortion, it saves everyone a shitload of money and trouble.
Nothing that anyone likes to have happen, but it does.

[Swamp Rat]

145. I'm Pro-Abortion

Too many damn people on Earth!

[bhikkhu]

148. K&R, and my perspective:

Its been called a "cop-out" by some, but as a male I just don't believe I have a right to dictate to any woman on the issue. So I would be pro-choice.

[BF825]

149. I appreciate your position

I used to be an unapologetic supporter of abortion (and still am) but I have to admit that I'm a lot more ambivalent about it as I've gotten older. I still think it should be legal, but I think we need to recognize that it's a very complicated subject.

Just for some background, (since I'm new here) I'm a man, registered Democrat, catholic, and I voted for McCain. But I do respect your opinion, Nikki, and I think I have more in common with the folks here then on the right.

[Helga Scow Stern]

161. Welcome to DU!

And if you don't support a woman's right to choose, I hope you have a big house where you can raise every child not meant to be born at this time,

[blueraven95]

151. K&R

completely and utterly agreed!

[sojourner]

152. the govt has no business deciding what is good for me. wish we could curtail all the govt

AND religious invasion of private life.

[jonestonesusa]

153. A proud rec for the right to choose. eom

[grahamhgreen]

154. K&R

[onestepforward]

155. K&R!

[Morning Dew]

156. Amen.

K & R

[FunkyLeprechaun]

157. 100+++ agree with you

This is why I think the position in Northern Ireland and Ireland should change. Abortion is banned in Northern Ireland despite it being part of the UK, so women fly to England to get abortions.

I'm Irish, I love Ireland (and Northern Ireland as well) as I think it's so beautiful, but I would never ever bring my daughter, if I have one, up in Ireland.

[truthrocks]

159. WITH YOU ALL THE WAY, NIKKI! Pls read this re the "Personhood movement"

Re: the so-called "personhood" movement touting legislation to RULE that the legal definition of a "person" begins "at the moment of conception." What gall! NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE knows exactly when conception occurs - not the woman, not the doctor, no earthly being. There is no exact "moment" that can be identified for when the sperm and egg join together, nor for when or if it implants in the uterine lining. What? Ten minutes after unprotected sex? An hour? 12 hours? 24 hours? 36 hours? This is complete bullsh*t. Just another ploy by the "christian" crazies to force their idea of "god's orders" into my uterus and eventually, of course, outlaw the human (reproductive rights) of all women. I honestly feel liked I've been raped after I am exposed to any of the "personhoodie's" pathological and perverted propaganda. They are seriously obssessed with this and it's just plain creepy. And all this, on the ultimate road to their final goal: a theocratically ruled nation.

http://www.personhood.net/

CURRENT PERSONHOOD INITIATIVES:

Federal Personhood Amendment (ongoing)
Alabama Personhood Bill (2010)
California Human Life Amendment (2010)
Colorado Personhood Amendment (2010)
Florida Personhood Amendment(2010)
Georgia Human Life Amendment (2007-ongoing)
Maryland Personhood Amendment (2009)
Michigan Personhood Amendment (2010)
Missouri (2010)
Mississippi (2010)
Montana (2010)
Nevada (2010)
South Carolina Personhood Bills (2)
Virginia Right to Life Bill (2010)

It will be coming to a ballot box near you very soon, if we don't get on it.

[lillypaddle]

160. Absolutely

Me, too. K&R

[Echo In Light]

164. Rec #241

[yellerpup]

167. K&R!

Proud to stand with you. :kick:

[Raster]

168. I stand with you, Nikki Stone! There is no middle ground, there is no compromise.

Reproductive freedom is sacrosanct.

[anachro1]

171. Damn right!

K & R

[La Lioness Priyanka]

175. so am i

[NikolaC]

176. K&R

[Autumn Colors]

178. Me, too. K&R (nt)

[ensho]

179. kick

nt

[rd_kent]

180. I agree with you 100%, but this thread is a complete circle jerk.

I mean, who WOULD be against anything in your OP? Certainly not an DU'er that has more than 100 posts, right? I mean, speaking out against what you posted would almost certainly get the poster tombstoned, so whats the point? Even the one troll who posted his "scenario" got shut down.

So again, yes, we agree with you, 100%.


But this thread is a self-serving circle jerk.

[Th1onein]

199. I have posted that I am against abortion many times here.

I've got over 1000 posts, and I've never been tombstoned for my anti-abortion views.

[rd_kent]

202. well, good for you.

I must say i am surprised. Why are you against abortions? Are you against ALL abortions?

[Th1onein]

204. Good for DU, you mean.

Being pro or anti-abortion is not a litmus test for DU membership. And it shouldn't be.

I am against war, the death penalty and abortion. For all the same reason: I support life. Period. I think it is inconsistent that Republicans are for the death penalty, for war and against abortion. I think it is inconsistent that Democrats are against the death penalty, anti-war, and pro-abortion.

I am against all abortions except those where the mother's life is at stake or partial birth abortions where the baby is already dead.

[rd_kent]

217. Interesting....

I applaud your moxie, it takes a lot of guts to defend that position here on DU.

May I ask where you derive your ideology on abortion? Is it religion, or personal experience? If you were in charge, would you make abortions illegal?

[Th1onein]

250. I believe that life begins at conception.

To give the pro-abortion side a crumb, I have to say that scientists really don't know when life begins. We have to take a good guess. My good guess is that it begins at conception.

I'm not religious at all. I'm an agnostic, tending toward atheist. It's ironic to me that people on DU talk about atheists having morality that is not derived from a belief in a god, and yet when I say that I am against abortion, I'm continually attacked as a religious fundamentalist nut. My "morality" and my stance against abortion doesn't come from a belief in god, at all.

I'm a businesswoman, by trade, but I've been studying biochem/biophysics for about 14 years now, and that's where I get my belief that life begins at conception. And, yes, I would make abortion illegal, if I were "in charge." I would also make other changes, that would make abortion an uninviting alternative, such as support networks that would make pregnancy, even an unwanted one, a celebrated state.

[xrdan]

362. It's no wonder that everyone on here has a million posts

Most of them are the "me too, hugs and kisses" variety. The rest are mostly name calling and put downs of anyone who does not toe the line.

[beyurslf]

182. Call it a litmus test, call it a line in the sand, call it what you like.

I call it right.

I will never support a candidate to who does not support full equality for women.

[Hello_Kitty]

183. Yes! Overturn Hyde too. eom

[gopiscrap]

185. I would actually be for an abortion for everybody

after the second child! We have too many people in the world as it is!!!!

[FreedomRain]

186. yes

Finally found the Rec button - such a worthy cause! :)

[slackmaster]

187. Me too - K&R!

:kick:

[mt13]

189. K&R nt

[kag]

190. Happily married with two kids, and couldn't agree more!

Rec'd. Monumentally rec'd.

[Th1onein]

193. Not a troll; not a RWinger. But I am against abortion.

Also against the death penalty and war, for all the same reasons. But I won't unrec this thread. You have a right to your opinion on this issue. As do we all.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

195. Please elaborate on your "against-abortion-ness".

Do you want Roe vs. Wade overturned?
When do you think the fetus/embryo becomes human enough so abortion should be outlawed? 4 months? 3 months? Conception?
What about anencephalic and otherwise 100% non-viable fetuses?
What about rape?

[Th1onein]

197. Yes, I want Roe vs Wade overturned

I think that life begins at conception. Period. Everyone has the right to live, whether they are "viable" or not. And, yes, I believe that women who have been raped should carry the child to term.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be changes in how we treat pregnant women; how our society supports women who are pregnant. We live in an imperfect world. But I believe that we should have a culture of life; one that supports life, in all of it's stages. If our species cannot revere it's own, in all of it's forms, then what are we? I think that when we perform an abortion, we are no better than an animal that eats their own.

[PeaceNikki]

201. Do you want left to the states or outlawed altogether?

Criminalized and treated as murder?

[Th1onein]

203. I don't know.

I want it to be something that we don't do. Period. Unless the mother's life is at stake.

[PeaceNikki]

205. Well I am glad that the law of the land disagrees with you.

And you clearly fail to see that restricted access to safe legal abortions puts the mother's life at stake.

Ending the biological life of an embryo through abortion is morally very different from taking the life of a full human being. Using an emotionally charged word like "murder" is inflammatory and illogical. If you really thought it was murder, you'd want the woman, the doctors and all involved charged and sentenced as murderers.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

207. The "life begin at conception" bit takes the cake IMHO. One-celled beings having personhood?

Give me a break. Only the most loopy, flat-6000-year-old-earth, anti-science talibanesque types believe THAT crap. And the irony is, it isn't even in the Bible. The Bible writers couldn't tell a fertilized egg from a Fabergé egg.

Nutcase stuff.

(Edited for 6000 instad of 600, but really, does it make any difference?)

[PeaceNikki]

210. An embryo or feotus is a living organism of the species Homo sapiens. But so is every human egg and

sperm cell. There is a difference between being genetically “human” and being a person in the moral sense.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

Wait, wait, wait, I need to make a correction.

The "life begin at conception" bit takes the stupid cake. The evil cake goes to another bit:

"And, yes, I believe that women who have been raped should carry the child to term."

I almost neglected this. Wow. Just wow.

[Th1onein]

209. That is a statement that assumes that abortion should be legal.

I don't agree with that presumption, so obviously I don't agree with your statement.

[PeaceNikki]

212. Oooh, you think outlawing them will make them, go away?

That's sad.

[Th1onein]

215. Outlawing murder doesn't make it go away.

Outlawing smuggling doesn't make smuggling go away. Outlawing prostitution doesn't make prostitution go away. Outlawing anything doesn't make it go away. But it does make a statement about who we are, as a people.

Please don't make this personal. It's not. We are discussing an issue; not me, personally.

The difference between what pro-abortionists and anti-abortionists believe has to do with when they believe life begins. I believe that it begins at conception. You, apparently, believe that it begins at birth.

[PeaceNikki]

216. Outlawing abortion puts women at risk.

But that seems ok to you if fetuses are saved along the way?

I'm not making this personal, but I tend to take it personally when someone thinks that their religious/philosophical beliefs not only trump mine but goes on to advocate taking away my rights. And deems me a "murderer" for a legal medical procedure.

[Th1onein]

222. You view this as a right. I do not.

One person's rights end where another's begin. I believe that life begins at conception, and if that is true, then your "right" is not a right because it encroaches on another's right to life. You believe that life begins at birth, so abortion then becomes a woman's right to control her own body. We disagree on one point: when life begins.

Surely, you can see that? I understand your point of view, but you are choosing to ignore mine and demonize me, personally. Do you think that gets us anywhere?

[PeaceNikki]

224. Full circle...

You're "belief" that life begins at conception is just that... a "belief". Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact. Religious communities have differing ideas on the definition of “person” or when abortion is morally justified. In the US courts, however, a fetus has consistently been found not to be a person with legal rights. Your belief interferes with MY rights, my belief does not interfere with yours.

So... the law agrees with me.

Whew.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

228. Her steadfast refusal to plainly give the "why" gives it away, really. -nt

[Th1onein]

233. I've given you the "WHY" time and time again.

I believe that life begins at conception. That's WHY I believe that abortion should be illegal. It's that simple.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

235. The question is why you believe that life begins at conception. What's the "why" to THAT? -nt

[Th1onein]

231. Simply because the law agrees with you doesn't mean that abortion should be legal.

Or that it is a right. The law "agrees" with putting people to death, too, but that doesn't mean that capital punishment is moral.

The fact is that we don't know when life begins. Until we do, abortion should be illegal.

[PeaceNikki]

234. This message tells me you think that the life of a fetus is more important than a living woman.

You know full well that outlawing abortion will kill women. Laws have never stopped abortion, but only made it VERY unsafe for women. Abortion is a universal practice that has been with us since the beginning of time, whether legal or illegal.

[Th1onein]

239. Then you are guilty of an error in your logic.

I think that a fetus is a live human being and is, therefore, equal to the importance of another live human being.

Murder is a universal practice that has been with us since the beginning of time, whether legal or illegal, as well. That doesn't make it right.

I know that, if we lived in a world that revered life, instead of looking at it as something that takes away from us quality of life, freedom, control over our own bodies, etc., there would be very few abortions.

[shadesofgray]

275. You're the one guilty of an error in "logic"

Because you put the rights of an embryo over the rights of a raped woman you want to force to carry the embryo.

You have zero concern for that woman's life.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

225. Anyone who thinks a raped woman should carry the child to term is in DIRE need of some demonizin'.

If anything, me and PeaceNikki are being way way WAY more civilized than the situation warrants.

[Lars39]

227. Conception is dependent on implantation.

The host must be willing and able.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

219. What makes you believe that life begins at conception?

All that's settled in the instance of conception is one's genes. Genes do not a person make. Else identical twins would be the same person.

[rhett o rick]

226. I am curious how far you are willing to go with the "everyone has the right to live".

Do you mean everyone? Or only white Christians? Do you include criminals and invading enemies. And that of course doesnt apply to animals. So those that choose to wipe out the Native Americans, they just had to define them as non-humans.

If you believe that life begins at conception, more power to you. Please dont force that belief on others.

[Th1onein]

257. Yes, everyone.

White Christians, non-Christians, criminals, invading enemies. Everyone. If you believe that life begins at conception, then there is no "forcing that belief on others," by outlawing abortion. It is simply making it illegal to kill another human being.

[Occulus]

327. Why are you so intent to reward rapists? n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

247. What would be an appropriate punishment for a woman who has an abortion

If you're going to make it illegal there has to be a punishment. What do you feel is appropriate?

[shadesofgray]

274. IOW, you value both the rapist and the fetus over the woman. Women must have rapists' babies.

To you, women are nothing but receptacles and containers.

Sickening.

[rebecca_herman]

308. Right to life you say...

You say everyone has the right to live, but I guess I'm screwed and don't have a right to life in your worldview if I ever become pregnant from rape as I have suffered from depression for much of my life and firmly believe such a pregnancy would be beyond what I could mentally handle and lead to me becoming suicidal. The loss of control after such an experience would be too much for many women to handle.

[PeaceNikki]

196. Are you against having them yourself or do you also project your againstness upon others?

If you don't ever want to have one, don't have one. My "opinion" doesn't get in the way of yours but your "opinion" can potentially get in the way of mine.

[Th1onein]

198. I think that abortion is murder.

Period.

[PeaceNikki]

200. Do you think that these women and their doctors should be punished and sentenced for murder?

What about the men who participated? Or the clinic workers holding their hands? Accessories to murder?

[Th1onein]

206. I don't know.

I think that abortion should be illegal. Except when the mother's life is at stake, or when the baby is dead in the womb. As to the penalties for it, I don't know what they should be. I think that we should be a society that reveres life; and especially human life and that we should put into place a system that supports those who bring new life into the world. I believe that there are enough systems of birth control to make abortion mostly unnecessary, but that when an unwanted pregnancy does happen, we should support the mother, so that it negatively impacts her life as little as possible.

[PeaceNikki]

208. Using an emotionally charged word like "murder" is inflammatory and illogical.

Ending the biological life of an embryo through abortion is morally very different from taking the life of a full human being. If you really thought it was murder, you'd want the woman, the doctors and all involved charged and sentenced as murderers.

[Th1onein]

213. If you believe that life begins at conception, murder is the appropriate word for abortion.

Please don't presume to tell me what I "really" believe. I told you, at the outset, that I believe that abortion is murder. That is what I "really" believe. The issue of what penalties, etc., should come from the performance of the act is an entirely different subject.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

214. Then your "I don't know" at post 206 is cowardly.

Have the intellectual honesty to admit the logical consequences of your convictions.

[Th1onein]

218. Why does this discussion have to degenerate into personal attacks?

I disagree with you on where life begins. It's that simple. You should not let that disagreement cause you to levy personal attacks.

I don't know what the penalties should be. I have the intellectual honesty to admit that, instead of sliding down the slippery slope you present that requires me to make judgements that are not even part of the original issue.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

221. This means your entire argument reduces to "Is TOO, you big meanie!"

Which brings the usefulness of this conversation to an end.

By the way, I kinda admire the effort to not admit the source (religious nuttery) of your anti-choice opinions. Alas, you fail.

[Th1onein]

229. Once again, another personal attack. Is that your best argument?

It's interesting that you, who know nothing about my religious affiliation (or lack of it) would levy such a charge, simply because I disagree with you about where life begins. And, yet, you accuse me of having no viable argument. Unbelievable.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

232. If someone tells me they think the earth is 6000 years old but it's not a religious thing...

...I reserve the right to seriously doubt the second statement. (Assuming the person isn't pulling my leg with the first)

"Life begins at conception" is a likewise idiotic, anti-scientific statement that has one AND ONE SOURCE ONLY: religious fundamentalism.

You give NO reason whatsoever for believing that. Because there ISN'T one out of fundie ideas.

[Th1onein]

236. If someone doesn't agree with you, then they're a religious fundamentalist?

Yeah, right.

Show me where there is proof that life does NOT begin at conception.

And, let me ask you this: If there were PROOF that life DOES begin at conception, would you still believe that abortion is a right?

[PeaceNikki]

237. Are you against the birth control pill? The morning after pill?

IUD's? Do you weep every month when you menstruate at your failure to take that life onto the next level?

[Th1onein]

240. Answer the question.

If it were proven that life does begin at conception, would you still believe that abortion is a right?

I am not against birth control. I don't know enough about the morning after pill to make a judgement for or against it. Your silly "Do you week every month when you menstruate...." question doesn't deserve an answer, as I'm sure you know.

Answer my question.

[PeaceNikki]

242. No, because it's a religious and not scientific belief. And it never ever will be anything but.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-personhood.htm

One of the most common pro-life claims is that "life begins at conception." Beyond the obvious controversy of this statement, there is actually a second and more subtle error here. And that is that human life began only once: at the dawn of humanity, with the rise of the first human beings. Since then, there has been a continuum of human life: every sperm, every egg and every zygote have been full-fledged signs of human life, complete with all the characteristics of normal cellular activity, and all 46 human chromosomes. (Half of these chromosomes go unused in the case of sperm and eggs, but all 46 are there nonetheless.) The correct question is not "When does human life begin?" but "When does personhood begin?"

Pro-life advocates claim that personhood begins when the sperm and egg join to form a zygote. The zygote is genetically unique and complete and will be the grandparent of every other cell this person will ever have. The fact that the zygote is the first entity to have all 46 chromosomes of a future person seems -- at first -- to be good evidence of personhood. But consider the counter-examples.

There are many entities which are genetically complete, which contain all 46 human chromosomes, which we nonetheless do not recognize as persons: ancient fossils, blood samples, hair cuttings, fingernail clippings, even skin cultures grown in burn centers. This is proof that genetic completeness, in and of itself, does not constitute personhood.

The pro-lifer would then object -- entirely correctly -- that none of the above examples have the potential to grow into a person. Left alone, the zygote will naturally become a person. Please note that this is a switch of argument: the pro-life advocate is no longer claiming that genetic completeness is a sign of personhood, but that the potential to become a person is a sign of personhood.

The zygote, of course, has a long way to go before becoming a functional person; it has none of the limbs, none of the organs, none of the central nervous system, none of the circulatory or respiratory systems; it is a single cell that contains the genetic blueprint of a future person.

The pro-choice argument continues that a potential person is not an actual person. In other words, if A has the potential to become B, then it follows that A is not B. An acorn is not an oak tree. You cannot climb the limbs of an acorn, build a tree-house in an acorn, or rest in the shade of an acorn. And you certainly are not chopping down a mighty oak tree by removing an acorn from the ground.

[Th1onein]

243. You didn't answer the question. Answer the question.

If it were PROVEN that life begins at conception, would you still argue that abortion is a right? I'm not talking religion; I'm talking scientific proof. Answer the question.

[PeaceNikki]

244. "No, because it's a religious and not scientific belief. And it never ever will be anything but."

That's my answer.

[Th1onein]

245. You can't answer the question, can you?

Haha! I didn't think you could. Or would.

You do understand the concept of a hypothetical, don't you?

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

[PeaceNikki]

246. It's a silly question.

Human life began only once: at the dawn of humanity, with the rise of the first human beings.

Since then, there has been a continuum of human life: every sperm, every egg and every zygote have been full-fledged signs of human life, complete with all the characteristics of normal cellular activity, and all 46 human chromosomes. (Half of these chromosomes go unused in the case of sperm and eggs, but all 46 are there nonetheless.)

The correct question is not "When does human life begin?" but "When does personhood begin?"

[Th1onein]

253. No, it's not. Answer it.

Hypothetical: Human life begins at conception. If this were proven, scientifically, to be true, would you still maintain that abortion is a right?

Why can't you answer that? It's a simple yes or no question.

[PeaceNikki]

256. Human life began once, at the dawn of humanity, with the rise of the first human beings.

So, it did not, does not, and will not ever begin again when sperm meet egg.

If rainbow unicorns were real, would you buy one?

I totally would!

[Th1onein]

270. You can't answer it. I'll answer it for you, then.

You would say that, even if it were proven conclusively, that life began at conception, you would still believe that abortion is a right. Because you believe that the choice of a woman, even if it ends a life, is dominant.

And you are wrong. That's why you won't answer the question.

[PeaceNikki]

272. Every month you bleed, you end a life! You shameful woman!

[Th1onein]

276. Silly argument. Same old bullshit.

Do you know what the term conception means? Got to be fertilized for it to happen, you know?

By the way, you're still not answering the question, are you? Hmmm, wonder why?

[rebecca_herman]

330. I answered the question and got no reply

So I can't blame anyone else for not answering.

[saracat]

282. That is NOT wrong. A woman's choice is paramount. The woman is the sentient being.

A cluster of cells cannot think. The woman is alive and has been born.The fetus is not a sentient being. What I do not get is who little respect you have for women. It is like you believe that their higher purpose is to "breed" and being the incubator of a fertilized egg sums of their true value.That fetus is more important to you than any of the hopes, dreams, or talents of the mother.

[Th1onein]

286. Is there ANY point at which the fetus is a sentient being?

Hmmm? Are you saying that as long as it's in the mother, then she has the right to end it's life? Hmmm?

I have a lot of respect for women. This has nothing to do with respect for women. I am a woman and a longtime feminist. I don't believe that our purpose is to breed, for God's sake. WHERE does all this bullshit come from, when discussing this topic? Are you guys telling me that you can't discuss this issue without these ABSURD accusations about what I believe?

[saracat]

299. yes.I am saying that. And it is not up to you or anyone else to make that decision for the mother.

Period.And if you think otherwise I am hard pressed to think you are any kind of a feminist. Palin describes herself as a feminist and is also against choice.And the only absurdity seems to be what you believe.I accept that it is your right to think as you please but it is certainly not either a feminist or democratic point of view.You might check out our party platform. Arguments such as the one as you present are the reasons why we shouldn't be a "Big Tent" philosophically.

[Th1onein]

303. You do your cause no good with personal attacks.

I, for one, am tired of it. There are, I am sure, many people on this forum who feel the same way, too. And, yes, the idea that we should be FOR life IS a Democratic point of view, even if it is against abortion. As a matter of fact, it is a LEFTIST point of view.

I think that it is appalling that your idea of the rights of the mother would extend to killing a perfectly normal baby all the way up to the point where it is actually born. It is not surprising, given that point of view, that many liberals disagree with you.

It is well known that a fetus, at nine months, is a SENTIENT human being, able to feel pain, and to form thoughts, and to be fearful, yet you would advocate a mother's right to kill that fetus, even so, at that point. This is not a middle of the road viewpoint, for most people, I don't think. It is radical.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

254. The muddying of waters from the term "life" benefits the fundies. That's why they use it

instead of "personhood", which makes much more sense.

[Th1onein]

279. Fine. Use personhood, if you like.

Same thing.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

297. Same thing? So, are shrimps persons? They are alive, you know. -nt

[Th1onein]

358. You went off the rail there, my friend.

I thought the topic was HUMAN life. Apparently, you were thinking seafood.

[rebecca_herman]

309. I can answer that question honestly

If it were proven that life began at conception, I would believe the women should still have the right to remove the fetus from the life support system of her body, but not the right to directly kill it. It could either live or not live depending on whether it was viable outside the womb. Howver when life ends at brain death and there are no brain waves at conception I don't see how it can ever legally be considered a life by any standard we use to measure life in the born prior to late in gestation.

[saracat]

248. Even if it does begin at conception, it is not viable 'real life" anymore

than single celled amoeba are persons. Do you think ejaculate is a person? Should we preserve menstrual fluid because it may contain an egg? I suppose you also value petri dishes!
And I have got to say, in the words of a friend of mine, who is a female MD, a psychiatrist ,in fact, she states that if she were to become pregnant under conditions which did not warrant giving birth, such as not having a partner, rape or economic difficulty, and the"child" were to prevent her from doing her job, which is caring for those already born, she would have no problem terminating the pregnancy because she knows the value of her contribution to society and that of the fetus is yet to be established.She termed it the value of the known. If the unknown prevents the contribution of the known, the known value trumps it.

The life of the mother should always be considered more important than that of a fetus. Too many render the life of the mother as unimportant or consider the rights of the fetus to be equal to that of a woman..

[Th1onein]

262. So, now, there's life and "real life," huh?

Sorry, that doesn't hold water.

[saracat]

280. Yeah there is. I don't equate single cell amoebas or bugs with the same value as

women. I did mention viability could be considered, but only if it didn't affect the health and well being of the mother. Better start scraping up those monthlies. Could be bits of egg. This reminds me of the every sperm is sacred crap. I suppose masturbating men are also "killing' babies and no doubt spermicide is also evil!

[Th1onein]

285. You're going down a slippery slope.

No one said that single cell ameobas or bugs had the same value as a female human being. No one said that menstrual fluid had the same value as a female human being. No one said that every sperm is sacred. What a bunch of bunk.

This is the kind of bullshit that separates people on different sides of an issue--this demonization of the other sides' viewpoint. Does it get you anywhere? Does it bring about further understanding? Does it bring closer a meeting of the minds? No.

Why do people do it then? Because they want to win the argument no matter the absurd lengths they have to go. And, ironically, in the end, they don't even serve their own purpose. How sad.

[saracat]

300. I am not interested in coming to any meeting of minds with a person who thinks

I should be denied the right of dominion over my own body. Sorry, but there is no compromise for me on this issue. And there ought to be now compromise on this issue by any Democrat. All Democrats who want to overturn Roe are, in my and many others ,opinion, no true Dems and ought to go elsewhere. An absolute violation of one of the basic tenants of our platform and statement of beliefs makes them unfit to be Democrats.I will never compromise my rights away.

[Th1onein]

304. But you've got people advocating killing a nine month old fetus....

Don't you think there's any compromise on that issue? Don't you suspect, even a little, that that stand makes your camp look like monsters?

Platform, schmatform. Since when did DU, liberals, or leftists conform to the Democratic platform? There are many things that all of us disagree with about the DLC; do you really expect us to all agree on this issue? We don't.

My point of view is the far left point of view. Whether you like it or not, or whether it is one of the planks in the Democratic platform or not. And, by the way, I don't think it's up to you, or any other abortion rights advocate to tell me that I'm not a Democrat. And it's arrogant as hell that you would seek to exclude me based on my views on this one issue. Many, many Democrats hold the same view. It doesn't serve our side well to argue that they should be excluded, or to level personal attacks against them, instead of discussing the issue in an objective and fair manner. People ARE going to disagree, on many points; to demonize them simply because they don't agree with you doesn't serve your cause very well.

[saracat]

306. Your point of view is the"far left point of view" Seriously? Did you even read this thread?

And yes, we would do well to be rid of Stupak and all his allies and most folks on the left do agree with that.The is no "fair and objective" manner of discussing this that excludes a woman's right to make her own medical decisions. There is no "fair and reasonable" way to deny civil rights.

The same request for "fair and reasonable" discussion that are also used to deny GLBT rights as well.Same argument is used to promote war and bust the unions. And BTW, which planks of the party platform do the "left", DU or liberals NOT support?

Only conservative Dems types ever look for the loopholes to get around the platform.And these types are stripping our great party of the dignity it once had.They are allowing a small minority of RW Dems to control the agenda.

I have never demonized anyone.Ant-abortion folks OTOH, including yourself, call us murders.I just do not respect that point of view.I think it is absurd and insulting.Judging by the response to this thread, your side is the one not being served very well.

And another point.Fair and reasonable sounds perilously close to FOX News propaganda.

[Th1onein]

313. Seriously, it is the far left point of view.

Have you ever taken a political science course? It IS the far left view.

And, apparently, you haven't read the Democratic platform, because it leaves out this issue, entirely. If you don't believe me, here it is: http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

Oh, and by the way? Winning in Afghanistan is one of the planks of this platform, too. Do you agree with THAT plank?

You're not demonizing anyone, huh? Then how about this: "And another point. Fair and reasonable sounds perilously close to FOX News propaganda."

All I'm saying is that you need to recognize that those who are against abortion are against it, not because they are misogynistic, or because they are some kind of right wing trolls, or because they want to strip the Democratic party of anything, but because they believe that life begins at birth. Period. Your idea that a woman should have the right to abort a healthy pregnancy all the way up to the moment of birth is anathema to these people, and rightly so. What you view as a right to control your own body is viewed by anti-abortionist as a right to take away the life of another, and we simply don't accept that as a right. To us, it's murder.

[saracat]

316. The 2008 Platform supports Roe.Platform below."

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs."
page 50

Apparently I am NOT the one who hasn't read the Platform.And as far as gratuitous insult is concerned, I would assume it takes one to know one.And yes, I have taken political science and have also worked on many campaigns both as a consultant and as a campaign manager . I do not need any lectures from you.And a a state party official I have several times worked on the party platform so I am well aware of what it includes. In my state I had to fight to get reproductive rights included and the challenge did not come from the "Left".The "Left" has always supported abortion rights.

[Th1onein]

335. It takes one to know one?

I did not see abortion rights anywhere in the index. My mistake, and you are right. It's a part of the platform. But so is winning in Afghanistan, and many of us don't agree with that, either. My point is that no Democrat agrees with every single plank in the platform.

And no one is lecturing you. If you choose to take my comments in that way, that's your choice, and there's little I can do about it except to say that I'm not lecturing you. I suppose next I'll be called a liar.

At any rate, leftist ideals support life, in all of it's forms. And, I do, too. And, you notice, in giving you my views, I don't call you a troll, or insinuate that you are associated with a propaganda channel, are a nutty religious fundamentalist, or that you hate women. I can't say the same for many pro-choicers on this board, though.

My point is that we are up against one hell of an enemy--the corporate state. If we continue to allow ourselves to demonize each other, and let wedge issues divide us, we will all lose. We must begin to have some kind of rational discussion of these issues, instead of calling each other names.

You consider anti-abortionists as outright misogynists, seeking to take away a basic right from women BECAUSE you don't agree that life begins at conception. I don't see abortion as a right, BECAUSE I believe that life begins at conception, and that, therefore, abortion is murder. It really is that simple. We need to be able to talk about this without all the hate, to recognize these basic differences in premises, and begin to have a dialogue about these issues that is civil. We will all lose, if we do not.

[PeaceNikki]

336. Abortion is not murder. No matter how many times you say it here.

So.... if you want people to discuss it with you in a civil manner, stop using an emotionally charged word like "murder" which is accusatory, inflammatory and illogical.

[Th1onein]

337. You are missing the point.

If one believes, as I do, that life begins at conception, then it logically follows that abortion is murder. That's just a fact. If you take a life, that is murder. If life begins at conception, and you abort a child, you have committed murder. It is a LOGICAL statement, not an emotional one.

However, it does NOT logically follow that if one is against abortion, then one must be a fruitflake religious fundamentalist, or a FOX News fan, or a misogynist, or a Republican. Those are ad hominem attacks having nothing to do with a rational discussion of the issue.

[PeaceNikki]

338. Bullshit. "Murder" implies a PERSON is being killed with intention.

"Life" is anything from an amoeba to a gnat or a fruit fly, or zygote. Just because YOU call it murder, wrought with emotion and lacking all reason, doesn't make it so. AGAIN, if you want people to discuss it with you in a civil manner, stop using an emotionally charged word like "murder" which is accusatory, inflammatory and illogical.

And further... you waltzed into a thread supporting women's rights to a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE just to shake your finger at people and point out how you think it's murder. In doing so, you pass a great deal of judgement upon people who disagree with you. And you expect civility?

Calling it murder *IS* a religious zealotry. Calling it murder when a woman has a legal medical procedure *IS* misogyny and it *DOES* reek of Republican values and Fox News type biased illogical emotion.

Deal with it.

[Th1onein]

346. I was invited into this thread by your "rec if you dare" pitch.

When you say something like that you are inviting people to argue with you. You are assuming, obviously, that you are talking to people that are going to disagree with you. And, since there ARE people who DO disagree with you, it is surprising that you would be angry that they DO!

"Murder," used in the context in which I have been using it, is a legal term. I think that that's been pretty obvious, throughout this thread. And to assume that it stems from religious zealotry is a stretch.

To YOU, abortion is a medical procedure because you believe that life begins at birth. To me, and other people who are anti-abortion, BECAUSE we believe that life begins at conception, abortion is the taking of a human life, which is murder, whether it is legally prohibited or not.

You know, what I see here are a few people who are so adamant that others accept THEIR point of view that they refuse to discuss the issue in a rational manner. That's a shame, because it means that those who want to divide us, in order to conquer us, will get their way. I am grateful that I have taken no part in ensuring that division, and I'm sorry that you continue to do so.

[PeaceNikki]

347. Right. More horsehit. Are you against stem-cell research, too?

I will again remind you that MY point of view does not interfere with yours or anyone else's, but YOURS is a crusade attempting to interfere with millions of women. In addition, abortion is *NOT* murder in any legal definition in this country, only in your head.

It's a LEGAL medical procedure to everyone in this country, not just me. In fact, even you could get one if you and your doctor felt it the proper course of treatment. I don't "believe life begins at birth". I believe "life" began once. Since then there has been a continuum of human life: every sperm, every egg and every zygote have been full-fledged signs of human life, complete with all the characteristics of normal cellular activity, and all 46 human chromosomes.

It's laughable that you think you're so superior that you can claim to have "taken no part in ensuring division" when that appears to have been your primary purpose in participating in this thread. God forbid a thread supporting women's rights pass through GD without you peering down your judgmental nose and calling women and their physicians "murderers", huh?

Whatever... have fun with your perceived moral superiority.

[Th1onein]

351. The idea that life began "once" is ludicrous.

Let me give you an analogy. A serial killer uses that argument to justify killing all of his victims. He'd get off scot free, because life began "once" and he's not responsible for ending a life anytime after that, because all of his victims are not really single lives, but simply a continuation of that first life.

To me, YOUR point of view leaves out millions of lives that have ended, and will end, in abortion, because I consider life to begin at conception.

As for looking down my nose, nothing could be farther from the truth. On the contrary, I do understand your position, and have stated, very clearly, and repeatedly, the differences between your position and mine, the anti-abortion position. On the other hand, you choose to take offense at every opportunity. This time, it's accusing me of being judgmental, and perceiving myself as morally superior.

Nor do I bother, most of the time, to even post on these types of threads. If you don't believe me, count the Stupak threads and see how many times I've posted in them. Nada.

The people of this nation, instead of allowing these wedge issues to divide them, need to put aside the inflammatory rhetoric, and start working on finding a middle ground, that we can all live with. That work starts here, with me and you, and all of us at the grass roots level.

[PeaceNikki]

352. pssst. here's a clue

Calling it murder is inflammatory rhetoric.

No matter how justified you feel it is. You keep latching onto that fucking word and the discourse will not be civil. Nor should it be.

[Th1onein]

354. Pssst. Here's another clue:

Sometimes, it's just not worth arguing with some people. Absolutely a waste of time when someone absolutely refuses to use logic.

On that note, you've joined the people on my ignore list. I'm not wasting anymore of my time with this silly crap.

[PeaceNikki]

360. Awesome-Won't stop me from telling you you're WAY out of line when you post inflammatory rhetoric.

[PeaceNikki]

364. Kick for "silly crap".

And stuff.

[saracat]

348. "Winning" is subject to interpetation.The Democratic Party makes a point of its unambiguous support

of Roe. Roe is considered a basic civil right. Those who do not support civil rights are not Democrtas.
Honestly, if you really think abortion is "murder" why are you part of a party that unequivocally supports "murder". I am not being snarky but it would seem that the GOP is more in line with your philsophies.Many republicans, especially Catholics are also against the death penalty. I can't understand why you would want to be included in a party that supports by your definition "murder".I am afraid I can't imagine either a person being called a "murder' or accessory to murder having a civil conversation with one who thinks they are murderers or accessories to murder.

[Th1onein]

353. We also support the war in Afghanistan.

AND, the war in Iraq! We supported both of them, as a party, when they began. No problemo, huh? And they are both murder. Mass murder.

There will always be issues that we will argue about. Always. But when you agree with the basic philosophy of a party, that's the party you belong to.

[saracat]

357. You might read the platform first.We actually did NOT support the war when it began. The vote

was Not about supporting the war until after it was already begun and as far as Afghanistan is concerned the "win" is defined by securing the commitment of further international troops specifically NATO.But I do agree that if you agree with the basic philosophy of a party that is the one you should belong to. However one must first be familiar with what that party's philosophy is before making that decision. The Democratic party does not advocate war and it is pro-choice.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

255. A fertilized egg is as alive as a drop of blood. It has no person, no self, no soul.

All those things are a function of the brain, which only starts to show something akin to higher functions later than 12 weeks, probably much later. That's a physiology and embriology question that's not completely answered, but one thig is certain: the probability of a newly-fertilized egg or blastocyst having those functions is exactly zero.

Therefore, your question is akin to "What if the number pi was proven to be rational?" Doesn't need to be answered because it's just not going to happen.

Question answered?

[Name removed]

238. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

241. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hippo_Tron]

252. Those judgments have to be part of the issue

You're trying to persuade us that we should live in a society where abortion is illegal as a matter of public policy. It's one thing to say that you personally are against abortion and don't think it should happen. It's another to enter the public policy realm without addressing policy. You think it should be illegal but you have no answers as to what the punishments should be. That's problematic for those of us who are pro choice as a matter of policy partly because we don't want to see women be punished by the law for having an abortion, particularly for rape and incest. If you can't answer these questions then you can't have a serious discussion about policy.

[Th1onein]

260. Illogical.

That's like saying that you can't agree that murder is immoral without making up your mind about the death penalty then and there. Bullshit. They are two different issues.

[Hippo_Tron]

287. It's not a discussion about the morality of abortion, it's a discussion about the legality

And yes if you are going to discuss the legality of murder it is important to discuss how people should be punished if they murder someone.

[PassingFair]

349. You said "...Abortion is murder. Period"

There ARE penalties for murder, so we really
don't need you to tap dance around the issue..

"I don't know what the penalties should be."

It is NOT "intellectual honesty" to say that
AFTER you have stated that you believe that
abortion is murder, period.

It is intellectually DISHONEST of you.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

211. If you think that abortion is murder, you DO know. Stop trying to weasel out. -nt

[Th1onein]

261. Do you think that using the term "weasel out" lends to a fruitful discussion of the issue?

I don't.

I also don't think that anyone against murder has to know whether they're against the death penalty or not. Or know every single degree of punishment for homicide. This for manslaughter, that for negligent manslaughter, this for an accident, that for self defense. This for that mitigating circumstance, that for this mitigating circumstance, etc. It's a stupid argument designed to move one away from the main issue.

[a la izquierda]

372. We're not, and never will be, a society that reveres life.

Get a clue.
Oh, and I had an abortion. I was raped by an ex-boyfriend. I guess I should go to jail. Come up from Texas and get me.
Fucking disgrace. And you're a woman. Don't even start with the Jesus preaching, I'm agnostic.

[Tailormyst]

315. What a horrible thing to say.

[Occulus]

325. Note that the poster is bitching about "personal attacks", but calls DUers murderers.

Is calling a DUer a murderer considered a personal attack? Don't trolls get banned for this shit any more?

[Tailormyst]

339. I would consider it a personal attack. It's incredibly offensive.

It's like listing to those nut case Radical Evangelicals.

[uppityperson]

318. Even so, r u against women having the right to chose a legal hygienic over a back alley abortion?

Or do you think women should not have that right?

[JetCityLiberal]

319. "Not a troll; not a RWinger." okay

based on this crap you have posted here I don't agree.

I will keep your words here bookmarked and in mind when I read any more of your DU posts....

Paul

[gorfle]

223. I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

And for keeping the government out of any decision a woman makes about her own health, her own uterus.

I've said it before and I will say it again:

You will never win the abortion argument by couching it in terms of "it's only about my body".

Because to many people, an unborn baby is just as much a person as one that is born, and consequently, it is not a decision that just affects the mother's body, but it also affects someone else's body.

You want to be able to kill unborn people. I've got no problem with that. Don't shuck and jive it - own it.

[Chan790]

249. "God" is the most-prolific abortionist of all time.

More pregnancies end in miscarriage, most within the first 2 weeks, than there are live births in a given year.

So...no, I don't think we need to own that...we're not responsible for "pro-lifers" (RW death cult members) just being wrong.

[gorfle]

288. Let's leave superstition out of the argument, too.

Any argument that starts with "God" is a waste of breath on me.

[Chan790]

296. Okay...

"God" Nature is the most-prolific abortionist of all time.

More pregnancies end in miscarriage, most within the first 2 weeks, than there are live births in a given year.

So...no, I don't think we need to own that...we're not responsible for "pro-lifers" (RW death cult members) just being wrong.

[gorfle]

298. Does this mean murder is OK, then, too?

I mean, nature is the most-prolific ender of life, too, since most of us die of "natural causes". Does this mean that murder by humans is somehow unimportant?

[saracat]

251. If they are unborn, they are not people.You can't kill someone who isn't born.

Taking that argument , one could assign personhood to people not yet conceived, children people "might" have. People who do not exist should not have the same rights as living women. Viability can sometimes enter into the medical equation, but even then, it is the woman's decision and if a late term abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the mother OR her health, it is justified.

[Chan790]

258. Well...every sperm IS sacred.

:hide:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

I love this Monty Python bit...it demonstrates the absurdity of the opposition position perfectly.

[saracat]

259. I remember that! Yeah. Spot on!

[gorfle]

289. Viability ALWAYS enters into the medical equation.

Viability can sometimes enter into the medical equation, but even then, it is the woman's decision and if a late term abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the mother OR her health, it is justified.

Again, as I have said many times before, the simple fact is there is not much different from a baby ten minutes after it is born to one ten minutes before it is born.

Because there is no way to draw a reliable demarcation line, the safest place to draw it, if you want to err on the side of human rights, is at conception.

I don't see why people insist on trying to dehumanize unborn people to justify killing them. Just own it. It's not a big deal. Society has already decided there are many cases when it is OK to kill someone. This is just one more.

[rebecca_herman]

311. A question then

We have ways we measure how life as ended in those that are born. It used to be when the heartbeat stopped, now it is generally complete loss of brain function. I do not deny that a fertilized egg is genetically human but so are sperm and egg cells. The heartbeat is not present until several weeks after conception, brain function occurs much later, a fertilized egg would not be a living human being by the standards we use to determine whether a born human being is alive. So to me it makes logical sense that a fertilized egg is not an alive human individual.

Now, and I am sure there are those here who will have a problem with my stance, I do believe that for the reason of brain activity and the beginning of higher brain functions a late term fetus is a human being. I do and would support laws that would only allow a late term abortion when in a physician's judgement it is neccessary to preserve the woman's life or health and would like to see that expanded to situations such as a fetus who cannot ever become viable due to a condition such as anencephaly. I am sure there are some people here who consider this unreasonable but I am ok with people disagreeing with me.

[apocalypsehow]

230. 300+ Recs and counting. The "pity me for all the unrecs I'm gonna get" gambit fails again.

n/t.

[JonQ]

271. Or succeeds

depending on the intent behind it.

[SidDithers]

277. Agreed...nt

Sid

[Th1onein]

359. HAVE YOU ALL NOTICED IT YET?

Where are all of the usual troublemakers on this thread? I'm not talking about people who post with comments that are well thought out, but the people who usually post with flame bait, and hi-jack threads. You know who I'm talking about. Trolls. They wouldn't be caught dead on this thread, arguing the anti-abortion side, especially.

[uppityperson]

373. Only behavior I see like that is yours

[voc]

278. Agreed. nt

[RedCloud]

281. Women's rights should not be merely limited to the reproductive functions.

I understand your point but I fear the main points are being thrown overboard and need to be mentioned as well.

[bamacrat]

301. Big kick. If a woman can pierce any part of her body get any part enhanced she has the right....

to choose. But on top of that I am a man and I think no man should have a voice in this. No male policy makers should be able to make a law telling a woman what she can or can't do with her body. We dont know what its like. Nothing is illegal for a man to do to his body.

[Agony]

307. Kick! No way this should get buried.. too important. nt

[Feron]

310. I agree, but too late to rec.

Every person has the right to his or her bodily autonomy.

And every child should be a wanted one.

[Agony]

312. Maybe if the Stupid and Nutson amendments fail I'll stop kicking this

[Tailormyst]

314. I am also an unapolegetic supporter.

I am an adoptee and a child of rape. I would completely understand if my birth mother has chosen different. No one has a right to decide what happens to a womans body except for that woman.

people like to yammer on about life of the mother and rape, etc being exempt. So I ask those people, what if she doesn't report the rape, like most women don't? Who gets to decide the medical necessity? How long would it be tied up in the court waiting for "permission" from a judge who has NO medical training and may just as easily decide from a theological standpoint.

There are so many reasons why it HAS to stay safe and legal.

[myrna minx]

321. I stand with you. n/t

[Agony]

334. We beat back the Nutson Amendment/ Now we have to beat back Stupid/Pitts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-kirsten-gillibrand/stopping-stupak-in-the-se_b_382464.html

And I'm going to need your help. Please join me in signing Emily's LIST's Stop Stupak petition here.
http://action.stopstupak.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=385&tag=KEG_HPost_20091117

While I oppose the Hyde Amendment, I am willing to accept it as settled law to move health reform forward. The claim that proponents of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment often make that this is simply a continuation of current federal law is simply wrong. The fact is, such proposals go far beyond settled law, and will in fact bring about significant change and dramatic new limitations on reproductive access in this country.

It would establish for the very first time restrictions on people who pay for their own private health insurance. This is not partisan spin, it is fact. A new study by the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services concluded "the treatment exclusions required under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange."

This is government invading the personal lives of Americans and it puts the health of women and young girls at grave risk.

[Syntheto]

340. Paid to curtail the discussion of women's rights?

Kind of a generalization isn't it? Somebody must be paying you not to agree with me, is that what you mean? I read the same thing over on the Guardian with G. Monibot concerning the climate debate. Skeptics of ManMade Global Climate Change are being paid by Big Oil. Is the new strategy? But, hey, I'm with you as far as the government keeping their noses out of this issue. That means I don't think taxes taken by the government should be used, that way the government has no say so.

[LaydeeBug]

355. welcome to DU.

and the answer is yes. RW trolls are sometimes paid to come here and disrupt.

[David Zephyr]

356. Yep.

Talk about government intrusion, this is it.

Kick.

[Agony]

361. The STINK of Stupak/Pitts is in the air. n/t

[Agony]

363. Hello! How is everyone today? Pro-Choice AND Pro-Life!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

365. Kick, because of the unbeliavable apologetics of extreme fundamentalist POVs.

That, I believe, is a turn against the far left.

[JetCityLiberal]

366. Kick.

For the GREAT thread (and post 365) above me!


Thanks Nikki,

Paul

[winyanstaz]

367. Dang right!

Keep those black robes out of our wombs!!!!

[Wounded Bear]

369. I'm a man, and I wholeheartedly agree....with enthusiasm...

bells and whistles, whatever. IMO, any restrictions on abortion that are not medically based are an intrusion of religion into politics and medicine, which I oppose on principle.

[JetCityLiberal]

371. Have rec'd and will kick. Thank you Nikki.

Paul

Truth Nikki, it will out.

Thanks again.