Democracy and Abortion

[Madspirit]

A lot of people voting on my "Should men get to vote on abortion" poll are suggesting I'm trying to circumvent Democracy...big "D"...*snort*

On what Bizarro World is it a Democracy for you to get to stick YOUR nose in MY womb?

I don't get to tell you what to do with your penis or your testicles. I'd like to...but alas, legally only YOU have say about MY body. It doesn't work the other way. Yeah, that's really Democracy.

Besides which, WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Certain rights are above voting on. They are set aside in a Constitution. Control over one's own body should be one of those. Some of us think it is.

I don't want anyone to tell me what I can do with my body. No man, no other woman, no state, no god. People are so dismissive about the "my body" argument and yet it really is the crux. It IS MY body. Keep your nose out of my uterus. Period.

This is what they've done in Canada. Abortion is not something that can be voted on. It is a RIGHT.
Lee

[Der Blaue Engel]

1. It's astounding that we're having this argument among progressives

Heartbreaking and demoralizing, really.

As I said yesterday, what part of "my body" don't people understand? :( (I'm thinking it's the "my.")

[Madspirit]

3. I think you're right.

They REALLY don't seem to get the "my" part. Mine, mine, mine. Of course no one else gets to decide what I do with it. That seems fundamental to me.
Lee

[originalpckelly]

52. This debate is what makes us progressives.

Conservatives have a very unified point of view on most issues, and that is one among many of their problems/defining characteristics. Democracy is debate and compromise.

We will probably come to a single conclusion at the end of the debate, and it's probably not going to be the "pro-life" position, but the debate is what makes progressives, Democrats, democrats, and Americans.

[Der Blaue Engel]

59. It's not really about the debate

but the crux of this particular issue. It's understandable to be "pro-life" in the sense that you think abortion is wrong, but it is decidely unprogressive to seek to deny the right to reproductive choice to others. I think it is actually a small but extremely vocal minority espousing that view, and I'm of a mind to suspect an outside influence at work.

[MemphisTiger]

2. Let the flaming begin...

The fact is that it's not only "your" body, it's the baby inside your body that you are making decisions for too, that the father of the baby should get a say in. Mothers sure as hell want them to pay child support weather they want to be involved or not so why should this decision be made without the father, or male. For the record I am a male, so those of you that wish to, flame away.

Since you realize we don't live in a true democracy I will remind you that we don't live in Canada either.

[Madspirit]

4. Not a Baby

It's not a baby until it's born. It is something hooked to MY body, using MY body, etc. As Ruth Bader Ginsberg said, woman are not chattel. They cannot be obligated to bear children. While it's IN me, it it a fetus, not a baby and it is connected to ME, only ME...not the daddy-o. IT'S rights cannot supersede mine. Canada agrees.
Lee

[mudesi]

8. It's intellectually dishonest to say that

It is a fetus for the first and probably the second trimester. By the third trimester, there is no doubt that it is a premature baby. We're talking about medical fact, here. I'm not making any case one way or the other on the issue of abortion, women's rights, etc. But the very least we could do is have an intellectually honest debate as opposed to repeating manufactured rhetoric.

[Madspirit]

10. Dismissive

Don't be so fucking dismissive about what I say. It really is the "my" part of "my body" you don't get, isn't it? That's THE crux to me. THE CRUX. Self determination over one's own body.
Lee

[mudesi]

12. That's fine with me

That aspect of the argument is a valid one. The part where you said "fetus until birth" is not.

[Firespirit]

11. That's fine

I won't dispute the point that most third trimester fetuses are viable. Probably by that time, MOST (but not all) women, if faced with a life threatening situation, would attempt an induced early delivery rather than an abortion, for this very reason.

The debate is about whether abortion should remain a LEGAL option for this period of time. I say it should. The law does not know about each woman's specific case.

[Der Blaue Engel]

16. What it comes down to is

are we vessels or are we fully human, with sovereign rights over our bodies? Viable or not, a not-yet-person simply does not have a right to be born.

[Der Blaue Engel]

13. I'm sorry, but it's a premature baby if it's *outside* the womb

This isn't intellectual dishonesty, it's an understanding of the whole. A baby is a person, a human being. A potential human being is simply that: potential. Until it separates from the host body, it cannot be considered anything other than part of the body in which it resides.

An individual cannot live inside of another individual.

[mudesi]

15. Not true

>>An individual cannot live inside of another individual.<<

You might want to take a tour of your local maternity ward to see otherwise.

[Der Blaue Engel]

17. Uh...you might want to try giving birth before you tell me whether

what's inside me is an individual.

[mudesi]

21. Believe it or not, you don't get to decide

The act of giving birth doesn't make one a doctor or a biologist. The medical fact is that every single pregnant woman past the third trimester is an example of a case where an individual is living inside another individual. This is undisputed fact.

[Der Blaue Engel]

23. I have never heard a medical professional say such a thing

Can you provide links to this undisputed fact?

[wicket]

44. I'd like to see those links as well

n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

78. "past the third trimester"

what is that, then, the fourth trimester?

Obviously, you're the expert.

[Captain_Nemo]

20. My understanding is that an individual can be either and organism or person or thing.

A person lives and breathes on their own. The anti-womanists are trying to prove that a blastocyst, zygote, fetus is a human being.
This is false.

The fetus cannot live outisde a woman. She gives it life with her choice to give it life.

Late term aboritons are difficult to have - they are used to save a woman's life. (That's why this recent decision is so dangerous and scary - it denies our right to adequate health care.)

It is helpful to remember one of the many funny sayings from the women's liberation movement:

"If men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament."

Really, it would. Can't you just imagine what the church rhetoric would be if men could get pregnant; "God speaks through man so if man says it is not right to have a baby so be it." or " Man is given dominion over the earth and the animals and the life inside of him."

[mudesi]

24. Hogwash

>>The fetus cannot live outisde a woman.<<

If sufficiently developed, a "fetus" can live outside a women. Much of the time, they are referred to as "premature babies".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. A fetus cannont live outside of a womb.

If it's outside of a womb, it's called a baby. If it's inside a womb, it's a fetus, unless it hasn't developed into a fetus yet, in which case it's an embryo.

Just keeping everybody intellectually honest.

[Captain_Nemo]

66. a large percentage of abortions (90%-ish) take place within the first three months

These zygotes , fetuses cannot live outside the woman. It is not a human being.

Yes, in later stages there are premature births. They are put in incubators and often survive.

However, If one is going to use this example - premature births as proof a fetus can live outside the uterus-therefore abortion should be illegal - one is opening up a huge discussion that involves:The role of females as human beings in the birth process.

Our Supreme Court just went down this road.

Kennedy wrote that the government has "“legitimate, substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life.”

For every American citizen this is scary and far reaching considering it is the upholding of a ban on a late term procedure (supported by the National Board of Gynecologists and obstetricians) that does NOT give an exemption for the health of a woman.

Sure a 7 month fetus can live outside the womb in an incubator. But what if a woman is 6 months pregnant and the brain is developing so abnormally as to not only insure death upon delivery but it could adversly affect a woman's life?

What would you want you wife, sister, daughter friend to do? What options would you want availiable to her? Moreover, would you want your government having power over her decision (by not giving her any options.)?

These are frightening times for Americans.

[Der Blaue Engel]

25. I see what you're saying

I was going from this definition of an individual:

1. a single human being, as distinguished from a group.
2. a person: a strange individual.
3. a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item.
4. a group considered as a unit.

But you (and lynyrd_skynrd) are using the biological definition:

5. Biology. a. a single organism capable of independent existence.
b. a member of a compound organism or colony.

But the law does not give biological entities personhood. (Thank god/dess.)

[Captain_Nemo]

65. Their premise is that the fertilized egg is a person.....that's the crux

Sometimes I talk to the anti-aboriton types and give them the logical repurcussions of illegal abortion:
A woman who has an abortion must be arrested and tried for murder.
A woman who miscarries should be investigated for murder.
Any miscarriage must be investigated as a potential homicide.

This is a logical conclusion. Yet, they usually back off and say well, no, but we should arrest the doctor who performs the proceedure.

And, then you've got them. They are afraid (some of them are not afraid of it that's where they want to go with our country) to go this far with the logic.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. And IVF clinics. And the pill, which most major "pro-life" organizations consider a potential

abortifacent and thus morally equivalent to surgical abortion.

No, when you engage your standard "life begins at conception" absolutist, they don't want to go there, mostly. Certainly not on the record.

[iverglas]

29. I love a medical fact

It is a fetus for the first and probably the second trimester. By the third trimester, there is no doubt that it is a premature baby.

Yeah. That's why medical science calls it "a fetus".

A quickie:
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3424

Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end
of the 8th week after conception
(when the major structures have formed)
until birth.

Damn, eh?


But the very least we could do is have an intellectually honest debate as opposed to repeating manufactured rhetoric.

Er ... damn, eh?

[Book Lover]

45. Medical fact?

Let's then start, please, with the correct terminology. I am an editor of anatomy and physiology textbooks. I have a copy of every such textbook used in undergrad education in the US in my office as I type. Not one of them use the terminology as you describe. In every instance, it is described as a fetus until birth, when it is then described as a baby or infant.

[wicket]

47. Damn you and your pesky facts!

;)

[mudesi]

74. You can call it whatever you want

And I don't want to respond to every single person here saying this same thing, so hopefully they'll see this post and that'll be the end of it here for me.

I don't care what you want to call it. Fetus, baby, child, parasite....These are all words to describe the same thing. For the sake of discussion, I shall use {insert word}.

It is a fact that one can take a {insert word} out of the womb at 8 months (for example) and it will have a high probability of survival. Viability is a well defined medical term and it is universally agreed upon that during the third trimester the {insert word} is viable, also known as "capable of living under favorable conditions".

This "debate", as far as I'm concerned, is completely irrelevant to the abortion debate. It's unfortunate that every single abortion debate predictably devolves into a screaming match over a well defined medical fact. It reminds me of the numerous discussions over at the Religion/Theology forum where people are incapable of accepting the fact that it is impossible for Jesus to have walked on water, since (as far as we know) gravity and buoyancy existed 2000 years ago.

Believe it or not, one can still be pro-choice without having to deny reality. The exact time when a non viable fetus becomes a viable {insert word} is not precisely known and probably can never be made precise. But it is a fact that that point is well before birth, hence my accusation of intellectual dishonesty.

[iverglas]

79. stick a fork in "viability"; it's done

You can say it over and over and over and over. And I'm sure you will. If not today, next week. If not you, someone else.

http://www.stillnomore.org/faq.htm

Stillbirths are as random as raindrops, occurring for no apparent cause even in the case of mothers who lead a healthy lifestyle during pregnancy. Most late and full term stillborn babies are born to mothers who experienced no problems with their pregnancy, who were healthy, and who led substance-free lifestyles. Rarely is a stillbirth caused by something the mother did. Until better data is available, and until autopsies are routinely offered to all stillbirth families, the causes, and thus, any new risk reduction measures, will continue to elude doctors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6588377.stm

Tuesday, 24 April 2007, 22:40 GMT 23:40 UK

Stillbirth numbers not reducing
A third of stillbirths occur at the end of pregnancy

Just over one in 200 pregnancies ends in a stillbirth, a figure which has remained unchanged since the early 1990s, a survey has revealed.

Stillbirths are deaths of unborn babies after the 24th week of pregnancy. ...

... Stillbirths declined steadily from the 1950s to the 1990s. Since then, there has been some success in reducing the number of stillbirths in multiple pregnancies, and in babies born prematurely, but the incidence in singleton pregnancies has remained level.

... Overall, the stillbirth rate was 5.5 per 1,000 births. A third of stillbirths occurred when a baby had reached full-term. For women under 20, the rate is 6.6 per 1,000 and for those over 40 it is 7.2 per 1,000 births.

... In over 50% of cases, doctors do not know why a baby is stillborn, although there is a theory that many of the cases could be linked to a baby failing to grow properly in the womb. Known causes of stillbirth include congenital malformations, where a baby's brain, heart or other organ have failed to develop properly; maternal haemorrhage; or asphyxiation during childbirth.

Now tell us again ... which fetuses are viable?

So 1 in 200 women forced to continue a pregnancy will deliver a dead baby/fetus. In 1 in 200 cases of "viable" fetuses, oh look -- the fetus wasn't viable.

How much did that crystal ball cost? I think you need to ask for a refund.

[wicket]

103. The woman who are having these abortions....

....don't just decide after 8 months that they are sick of being pregnant and abort a healthy baby. This is for severe birth defects and life threatening situations.

[originalpckelly]

53. You did not present any evidence to support the statement. If you are going to say something...

use evidence to prove or attempt to prove your conclusions/statements.

[spoony]

127. Precisely, at SOME point we are logically bound to

call it a baby. In another thread I was just told that it didn't have rights until the umbilical cord was cut. The extremism, on both sides of this issue, is astonishing.

[twenty4blackbirds]

133. ...a parasite until 3rd trimester? so if daddy wants baby...

...then daddy can ask mommy to undergo surgery to remove no-longer parasite, and then daddy can look after a premature baby?

When can we get technology so that women aren't baby-factories? (c.f. Bujold's 'Vorkosigan universe')

[MemphisTiger]

38. However without your intervention that child will probably

live and have a productive life, who are you to kill it?

If you like Canada, you are more than welcome to move there, I love Canada.

[iverglas]

54. if only

If you like Canada, you are more than welcome to move there

Actually, we have immigration laws and such up here, and odds are that our friend would not be welcome to move here. I love how some USAmericans do seem to think they can / should be able to just move where they like, but not vice versa!

However without your intervention that child will probably
live and have a productive life, who are you to kill it?

Child? What child? What am I missing? ... Oh, damn, it gets boring. Why can't you people just used words that mean the things you're talking about, and cut with the neverending demagoguery? Why would it have harmed your post to use the word "fetus" to refer to what you were referring to? Why would you not do that?

The same can be said of an embryo at five weeks' gestation. It will *probably* develop to birth, be born successfully, and live some kind of life, anyhow. Are you distinguishing between an embryo at five weeks' gestation and a fetus at 36 weeks' gestation? In this respect? How?

And if you think that a fetus gestates without the "intervention" of the pregnant woman ... sheesh. Ask a pregnant woman ... or a doctor or biologist ... sometime.

[Madspirit]

57. Sorry

I had my abortion here...all safe and legal and without anyone else's consent...
Lee

[Warren DeMontague]

72. Do you feel the same way about your sperm? nt

[originalpckelly]

49. Actually, it's Schrodinger's cat.

[ceile]

5. Fetus not baby.

And while it's in my body, I take responsibility for it-not a man. If I chose to have it-that's MY decision. Once there is a baby, then it becomes both the mother and father's responsibility.

[Karenina]

9. Any woman who's had a miscarriage can tell ya...

A fetus does not necessarily a child make.

[spoony]

128. When does it become a baby then?

Is there magic in that first breath that makes it a human?

[Der Blaue Engel]

6. Oh, but it IS only my body

Something going on inside my body is inside my body, period. I don't care if it's a travelling circus of rare, nearly-extinct harp seals waving the lost scrolls of Jesus and dancing the tarantella. It doesn't get to have a separate consideration from the host or any outside parties any more than my pancreas does. It is a *potential* human, not an actual human, and it's feeding off of me, and if I say no, it means NO.

[Firespirit]

7. Why the resentment of child support?

A child is a person with legal standing and rights protected under the Constitution. Households headed by single mothers have the lowest income of all family types. Women as a group get paid only 70% of what men get paid. That man would be legally responsible for supporting his child if he were married to the mother; child support laws only remove the loophole than men would take to get out of their responsibility.

Once the child is BORN, yes both parents (if of sound mind and fit to be parents) should get a say in matters. But a fetus is living inside the body of another human being.

What the abortion debate is really all about, is whether a woman has autonomy over her body after a man has deposited his semen in it. A lot of men seem to think that this act marks a woman as their property.

[Karenina]

22. Your last sentence says EVERYTHING.

Men have been conditioned to believe that penetration of a woman confers superiority. Like pissing on a fire hydrant...

[Der Blaue Engel]

27. My cat does that

(Not piss on me, thank goodness, but marks me as his property with his little face glands.) But he has no thumbs and cannot buy food, so I think I win that argument, too. ;)

[iverglas]

31. oh yeah?

But he has no thumbs and cannot buy food, so I think I win that argument, too.

But who buys the food and operates the can opener ... and who eats it? Perhaps "property" would be inaccurate; "slave" might be better. ;)

There are those who doubt that my cat is the Queen of Romania ...

[Der Blaue Engel]

41. Lol

You have a point there. :D

[Manifestor_of_Light]

48. I already posted about this in another abortion thread.

I got pregnant after I was married, I wanted the kid, my former hubby didn't and told me to get an abortion. I refused.

We got a divorce, my health broke, and he sued me for child support and he got custody. I had to pay child support until the child graduated from high school. This is because I live in Texas and women are considered to be equally able to support a family, because of the Spanish law since 1836. It's far more progressive than English or French law.

This was to get back at me for having a child without his permission.

He was selfish and didn't want a child because that would cost money and was a responsibility.

I committed the sin (in his eyes) of having a happy, healthy, beautiful child who is now a beautiful, healthy young adult in college.

He was the one with the steady job and I was the one with lots more education, and I had extreme difficulty getting and holding down a job (due to the destruction of the middle class in the Clinton years).


You just can't please some people. They make up their own BS and then believe it.

[spoony]

129. Nonsense

Men are NOT conditioned to think that. This is NOT the 1400s.

[MemphisTiger]

99. I have no resentment for child support. I do resent that

the father has no opinion in weather or not the baby is aborted but has not choice weather or not the child is aborted. It took both parents to create the child, why does the mother only have the right to terminate the child?

[Karenina]

125. It is NOT a child until it breathes independently.

[Lars39]

131. Because she could die, be maimed for life, or have a compromised

reproductive system for the rest of her life. WTF is it so hard to understand.

[sandnsea]

18. You don't pay child support on a fetus

If you don't want children, get a vasectomy or don't have sex. Otherwise, the possibility of a child should ALWAYS be on your mind. Sex is a reproductive act. That's the decision you get to make.

You do not get to inflict the health risks of a pregnancy on anybody.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

88. Great point! n/t

[wicket]

32. When you grow a uterus and ovaries...

....you may have a say over what goes on in mine, thanks! :hi:

[MemphisTiger]

36. That's a cop out and proves you don't have a case

thanks for playing

[wicket]

39. It's not a cop out, it's the goddamn truth - no MAN has any say over my body

Thanks for playing :hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

77. Oh, yeah, another Debate Team All-Star, here.

I guess if you say it proves she doesn't have a case, that settles it. :eyes:

So tell me something, genius- at what point do you believe a fetus should have rights that supercede the rights of the body in whom it is gestating?

[Der Blaue Engel]

61. Actually, you may not

You can have all the opinions you like, but regardless of genitalia, nobody but me gets a say about the use of my uterus. :)

[wicket]

62. Exactly

:hi:

[colinmom71]

34. Not "flaming" you, but I do have some counterpoints to your post...

The fact is that it's not only "your" body, it's the baby inside your body that you are making decisions for too, that the father of the baby should get a say in.

Sure, ideally the father should have a voice in the decision - within the context of their interpersonal relationship. But as it is not a legitimate function of governance to micro-manage personal relationships, the law cannot be used to force couples to make what one deems to be the emotionally healthiest choices to maintain the relationship. People's private relationships are precisely that - private and free from legal entanglement. It sometimes means they are thus free to make personal choices that conflict with their romantic partner, and the consequences of those choices don't require legal enforcement.

The fact is, that anything one wishes to do to benefit the fetus, be that instilling better dietary choices, pre-natal testing, or even fetal surgery, must inherently utilize the pregnant woman's body to attain that goal. As we do not allow others to use our bodies without permission, the law requires consent from the pregnant woman in order to provide benefit to the fetus. In the end, the legal power of consent should belong solely to the interested person whose body will be most intimately impacted by those actions - the pregnant woman herself.

Legal consent by the autonomous and sentient individual is a cornerstone of American Constitutional law and process. Just as only the woman can consent what happens to her own body, the same applies for men. For example, a man can legally consent and acquire a vasectomy without outside permission from his wife or significant other. While it may not be the wisest choice for a healthy marital relationship to do so without interpersonal communication and agreement within the privacy of their marriage/relationship, the law is and should be only concerned with whether the patient is freely exercizing their right of informed consent.

Mothers sure as hell want them to pay child support weather they want to be involved or not so why should this decision be made without the father, or male. For the record I am a male, so those of you that wish to, flame away.

The issues concerning child support are not about benefitting the custodial parent (yes, this is often the mother but not always). Rather, it is about protecting the child's right to be supported by both it's parents. Non-custodial parents are not compelled to be involved in their child's life, only to provide a subsistence support to keep the child from living in poverty and thus needing public assistance. Besides, the responsibility and costs of child-rearing will always be a greater financial burden for the custodial parent, so they're "paying for playing" too.

The problem with the notion that the purported father should have a role in whether or not a pregnancy should be aborted or continued is that the man's and the woman's sense of what is the better and moral choice may differ. And it doesn't just apply to scenarios of the woman having the child and the father paying child support after birth... What if the father wanted to continue the pregnancy, and was even willing to take over full-time parenting of the child once born, but the woman is unwilling to take on the physical risks of pregnancy or if she's unwilling to give up any children that she gives birth to? Do we allow the man's wishes to compel the woman to remain pregnant against her wishes? Do we allow the man's wishes to supercede her right to refuse exposing her health to the medical risks inherent to pregnancy and childbirth?

Men have simpler choices than women. Men don't have to worry about risking threats to their health and even lives due to an unplanned pregnancy. Sorry, but the biology of reproduction makes the choice whether or not to terminate inherently unfair, at least in so far as legal consent powers are concerned. If he wants to avoid parental responsibility, the man needs to exercize his own form of consent and have either a vasectomy or to not have sex with a woman until they have privately decided what their "game plan" will be in case of an unplanned pregnancy.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

87. A fetus and a born child are separate legal entities

That's why the mother gets to choose prior to birth, or viability if that's the law. After a baby is born, s/he becomes a distinct person and is entitled to support from both parents.

There really is no conflict here.

If you DON'T want to be a father, then take the appropriate steps to avoid it.

If you DO want to be a father, then find a woman who agrees to bear a child with you.

You DON'T get to commandeer another person's body to produce your offspring.

It's really that simple.

[MemphisTiger]

102. It's not that simple as you state it,

that is a dismissive attempt to avoid the real argument.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

105. The real argument

Is that a woman's body is her own. Anything else is dismissive, and irrelevant.

You don't get to commandeer another person's body to incubate your offspring. Period.

[MemphisTiger]

106. Obviously you're unreasonable with this issue

[iverglas]

107. of course she's unreasonable!

She's a WOMAN.

How much better if she were yet another teenaged boy mouthing off about things he has no clue about and no business interfering in. Then she'd be the very definition of "reasonable".

[MemphisTiger]

108. whatever makes you feel better, I don't care but arguing

with someone like you is like arguing with a potted plant... it's fun for a while but it doesn't get you anywhere.

[iverglas]

109. indeed

I understand that it can be difficult for teenaged boys to tell the difference between women and potted plants.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

115. I do beg your pardon, but

You can't have a discussion without name calling

I began by responding to your description of someone as "unreasonable", and continued by responding to your characterization of me as a potted plant. Perhaps you're looking in a mirror?

so who is the teenager here

You.

I'm guessing you're a sophomore in college that puts you at about 19 or 20 probably

You must be one of those people I read about who lose the house to gambling debts.

We don't have "sophomores" here. I was a second-year university student in 1970. (Actually, that was also my final year, since I took two years to complete my three-year degree, that being what we had here at the time, since we had an extra year of high school, which I didn't bother with, in fact.) But granted, I was 17 when I finished. Philosophy and French literature. Followed by a major in political science. Followed by an LL.B. Followed by some more courses in economics and such like, and teaching law a bit, and practising it quite a bit, and doing a few other things along the way.

Of course, much that would be obvious to someone who had a similarly broad and specialized background, and bothered to pay attention to what other people said.

Teenaged boys tend not to do that a lot.

don't you have a baby to kill or something?

My my. You're a really charming specimen. And I do love it when the charming specimens spread their plumage for the world to see.



edited because while they taught me to type when I was 11, sometimes it fails me.

[MemphisTiger]

116. LOL

[Scout]

118. wow, great comeback. You must have had to think about that one... n/t

[Scout]

114. yet you continue to come back for more? why would that be? n/t

[MemphisTiger]

117. It's amusing but not productive

[Madspirit]

14. Haha...Hilarious

What's hilarious is that all the outraged ones seem to be forgetting...*snort*...the law already says that for the first six months IT'S NOT ANYONE ELSE'S BUSINESS. Whoohoohoo. For the first six months, without anyone's permission, including poppy-o's, it's my decision. For the first six months I can have an abortion, for any reason I want to, without question. So I find all the moral outrage preposterous.
Lee

[wicket]

42. Excellent observation

:thumbsup:

[originalpckelly]

55. True, and gay men and women cannot get married anywhere but MA.

Just because something is law does not make it right automatically.

Even decisions from the highest court in the land have been profoundly unjust, Plessy v. Ferguson comes to mind.

[Der Blaue Engel]

19. Progressives and Reproductive Choice

might be a better title for this thread. Reproductive Autonomy might even be a better term.

Can someone who is anti-choice be a true progressive? What is progressive about controlling another person's body?

Let me be clear that I am not saying a progressive can't be anti-abortion, but even those who disagree with the choice someone else makes about whether to give life to another human being should surely be able to understand that the person has the right to make the choice.

Or am I taking crazy pills?

[Balbus]

26. I see your point, but the example you're using is not approrpiate.

If I want to wave my penis and testicles around in front of the pre-school down the street, you don't think there should be a legal say-so about that? It's my body - I can do what I want with it...

Again, I reiterate, I see your point. You just used a poor example.

[iverglas]

28. just a wee clarification ... and to get bck to the subject ...

Besides which, WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Certain rights are above voting on. They are set aside in a Constitution.

Yes. Other terms are liberal democracy (minority rights within a majority-rule format), and constitutional democracy.

Canada is a liberal democracy, and a constitutional democracy, and also a parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracies come with their own traditions, the defining one being that parliament, the legislative branch, *is* supreme. (We have only a titular head of state, with no veto or policy-making powers like those of your president, at least not without a simultaneous revolution.) The will of the people, expressed through the voice of their elected representatives, does govern.

When we wrote our new constitution back in 1982, we had a dilemma. We had adopted all the fine new ideas about human rights -- one of us wrote the United Nations declaration on the subject -- and we wanted them to be more expressly and firmly protected than they had been to date, particularly equality rights. But we do believe that the people are the final authority.

So we did the Canadian thing. We compromised. The bare bones of the compromise, in the new constitution, are:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Now, the US constitution doesn't expressly say that, but it's generally understood: the prohibition on abridging freedom of speech doesn't mean that the law may not prohibit perjury or yelling "fire" in crowded theatres that are not on fire. Your founders & framers assumed that everybody understood that. We wrote it down. Both of us have tests developed by the courts to apply that notion.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Very similar to the US constitution.

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

The Supreme Court can say "no", and a legislature can say "fuck you". Not even Stephen Harper is willing to do that, at present.

Oh, and, just for good measure:

28. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

That one took an organized uprising to get included.


So what happened in 1988 was that the Supreme Court struck down the existing abortion law as contrary to section 7 -- but it left the door open for Parliament to take another stab at it and come up with some other law that might pass charter scrutiny.

It was tried 3 times. No bill ever got out of the House.

It's virtually impossible to imagine a law that would restrict access to abortion in any way and be in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice (due process squared).

But it *is* conceivable that Parliament could justify such a violation under section 1 -- as a reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. That is, essentially, that there is some overriding state interest in prohibiting abortion that outweighs women's individual interests in life, liberty and security of the person in some cases.

And it is theoretically possible that a parliament could pass a restrictive law, have it struck down by the court, and say "fuck you" -- and that would not be technically "unconstitutional".

So far, we're doing fine. ;)

[piedmont]

97. iverglas, some of your replies ought to be OPs.

They don't get enough attention buried in a thread, and they're certainly content-rich enough for an OP. Regarding the "fuck-you" message that parliament could send to the court: would the closest American equivalent be to pass an amendment (which of course requires much more than Congressional action)? In other words, I get the impression it's easier under the Canadian system for parliament to go against the courts. Is that true?

[wicket]

100. Agreed wholeheartedly

:thumbsup:

[iverglas]

104. I'm considering a series ...

"I'm a Canadian; ask me anything" ;)

would the closest American equivalent be to pass an amendment (which of course requires much more than Congressional action)?

We have the same process -- an amendment formula that involves certain percentages of provinces, representing certain percentages of population, for different kinds of amendments.

There really isn't a US equivalent to the "notwithstanding clause". It's an inherent part of parliamentary democracy that the US expressly rejected when it achieved independence and wrote its constitution.

I suppose the closest US equivalent would be appointing judges to the US Sup Ct who are willing to uphold legislation enacted by Congress or a state that itself says "fuck you" to the constitution. ;)

We can do that too -- in fact, our Sup Ct judges are at present appointed by the federal executive (i.e. PM and cabinet) w/o review by the legislative branch. We just don't, so far; there is very little on which our Sup Ct judges to date can be criticized, in terms of political favouritism or just bad decisions. Maybe the notwithstanding clause works as a mitigator of an executive tendency to appoint judges that would always agree with it!

[WindRavenX]

30. a-fucking-men

:thumbsup:

[Madspirit]

33. hee

"a-fucking-men"


I actually think that's where the problem starts...<g>

I'm just playing...thanks for the support.
Lee

[wicket]

37. Stop it, you're killing me!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: ;)

[wicket]

35. And while we're at it....

....one does not need testicles/balls to have courage (not singling anyone out on it's usage, just in general).

[iverglas]

40. someone at DU recently suggested

saying that someone courageous has "guts", and someone else was pleasantly surprised at that suggestion.

Me, I was surprised that anyone had forgotten it. It's what we all said, back in the day before we went quite so far down the vulgarity slope. (The Victorians wouldn't have liked "guts", either.)

It's interesting that as our language has become more vulgar, more recently, it has also become more misogynist / sexist in almost every instance.

[wicket]

43. "it has also become more misogynist / sexist in almost every instance."

Sad but true :(

[piedmont]

50. If it's not a person, then nobody but the woman should decide

The debate is over the question of whether a fetus at a given stage is a person or not, and that discussion should include all members of society, and should be informed by science. If a fetus at a particular stage of gestation is a person, then the fetus' right to live and the woman's right to privacy are in conflict if she wants an abortion-- and how to resolve that conflict is something for society to decide.

[Forkboy]

51. I don't mind people telling me what to do with my penis and testicles.

But I don't want it to be LAW or anything. :D

[Madspirit]

58. I really love Forkboy.

He just cracks me right up...almost every time he posts.

Hi Forkboy!
Lee

[Forkboy]

60. lol...thanks.

:hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. The abortion issue is about women's sexuality - not children.

"Nice" girls don't have sex for any other reason than to please their husbands and have babies. "Naughty" girls have to be punished for the unforgivable sin of actually enjoying sex.

As someone said, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

As for the "democracy" question, it is the "democracy" of a lynch mob out to burn a witch who dares to challenge the "superiority" of men.

BTW - I'm a man.

[Der Blaue Engel]

63. Very well said

:thumbsup:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

64. The Following Are My Own Personal Declarations Regarding Abortion Rights:

1. Absent of any of the circumstances outlined below, unhindered and fully accessible right to an abortion.

(Restrictions on above when the following circumstances arise:)

2. In a circumstance where the father passionately wants the child and no imminent issues of fetal or maternal health are present, the father's desire should be given some legal weight.

3. In a pregnancy past 18 weeks gestation, abortion should be available only when necessary for the physical health (meaning risk of permanent damage/debilitating disorder/unsurvivable birth/death is likely for the mother or fetus).

I read and can understand your personal opinion on the issue. This is my personal opinion on it.

[Book Lover]

67. May I ask for clarification on those points?

#2: How much weight? How do you propose enforcing the father's requests?

#3: Why 18 weeks?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

68. Sure!

"#2: How much weight? How do you propose enforcing the father's requests?"

Enough weight that if a consensus can't be reached amicably, that the father has some legal recourse for a hearing to determine the outcome. It would then be up to the judge, after weighing all facts and circumstances, to make a binding decision.

"#3: Why 18 weeks?"

Because that is my own personal threshold of where I consider the mother's autonomy to no longer be of higher priority than the fetuses.

[Madspirit]

69. Well now

I understand the number 3 though don't agee but on the Number 2:

"Enough weight that if a consensus can't be reached amicably, that the father has some legal recourse for a hearing to determine the outcome. It would then be up to the judge, after weighing all facts and circumstances, to make a binding decision."


What if she simply refuses to have it? Are you going to bind her to her bed? Press charges against her if she goes off and has one anyway? Lock her in a room until the birth and hope she doesn't NOT want it bad enough to punch herself in the gut? (I knew a woman who did this prior to Rvs.W) What exactly are you going to do to enforce this?

Lee

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. Not Sure Exactly, But

probably similar to other contempt of court type penalties/penalties for disobeying a direct court order.

[iverglas]

76. OMC isn't sure ...

but has no problem advocating rights violations anyhow. Yammer first, think last.

I'm not sure what should be done if OMC insists on posting messages on the internet even when I've said I don't like it, but I know something should be, and a court should order him to stop if it can't be worked out ... and I don't know what should be done if he keeps it up anyhow, but something bloody well ought to be ...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

80. Your Post Is Needlessly Provocative.

I am not required to have a firm legal like penalty structure implemented in order to have an opinion on the subject, and your assertion of such is pretty ridiculous to me as far as mode of debate is concerned.

I made my opinion clear and answered honestly the question about penalties, and surmised that they should be somewhere in the structure of what currently exists for contempt of court or when one disobeys a direct court order. That is perfectly fine to phrase it in such a way and your reply to such opinion was nothing but needlessly provocative and void of any real points of debate. I also happen to believe that your insinuation that a father has zero rights during pregnancy to be in fact the true exposure of advocating rights violations.

When you are up to the level of response required to actually engage in a real discussion, let me know. Until then, bye! :hi:

[iverglas]

81. hahahahahahahah

Your Post Is Needlessly Provocative

Yes, and advocating that the fundamental rights of every woman in your country be violated is just pleasant chit-chat.

The sanctimoniousness of the advocates of violating human rights never fails to amuse me. But then I'm pretty easily amused.


I made my opinion clear and answered honestly the question about penalties, and surmised that they should be somewhere in the structure of what currently exists for contempt of court or when one disobeys a direct court order.

And what would your answer be if the question was what penalties should be imposed for, oh, being Jewish and refusing to wear a yellow star? Speaking in public against your president's foreign policy? Engaging in sexual activities with a member of the same sex?

A decent person would say "mu": the question is loaded with a false ... and unspeakably offensive ... premise, and I will not accept it as any question at all.

Which is exactly what your answer should have been. What should the penalty be if a woman exercises her fundamental human right to reproductive choice? MU.


When you are up to the level of response required to actually engage in a real discussion, let me know. Until then, bye!

When I find it advisable to engage in any discussion of what the penalties should be for me or any other woman exercising our fundamental human rights, I'll let you know. Don't be holding your breath, now.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

85. One Thing You Must Come To Learn Is That Your Opinion On The Issue Is Not Written In Stone As Gospel

You seem to want to present your argument as if it is the be all end all of the discussion on such things. Sorry hon, but it ain't.


Your Post Is Needlessly Provocative

"Yes, and advocating that the fundamental rights of every woman in your country be violated is just pleasant chit-chat."

That's what I find so funny about some people's arguments when it comes to this; the concept that killing a healthy fetus is a fundamental right that a woman has that is untouchable by anything else. It is not a fundamental right, it is a granted right based on rational reasoning that a woman is in ultimate control of her health and body. I agree with that. But I don't think that rule or right supersedes anything and everything no matter what. There are other rights that must have some bearing as well, such as the rights of the father and/or rights of the fetus itself, at a certain point.


"The sanctimoniousness of the advocates of violating human rights never fails to amuse me. But then I'm pretty easily amused."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Sanctimoniousness? :rofl: :rofl:

See, that's where your whole end of the debate falls apart in my opinion. There was no sanctimoniousness in my post or others I've seen. It cracks me up when I see accusations like that because the accusation itself is rooted merely in dislike of an opposing opinion than your own and attempts to weaken that opposing opinion by labeling it falsely with a term with negative connotations, due to an inability to address the point on its merits. Really, really very silly to read.

I also disagree completely with your assertion that I'm advocating the violation of human rights. Nowhere inherent in the natural world is a right to kill an unborn fetus. Such a declaration is absurd on its face. There is a derived right granted from our own reasoning that a woman's health and body are for her to make decisions with. But that concept is not the be all end all of the discussion, since rights of the father and more importantly what some consider rights of the fetus itself can also be competing rights to those of the mother. Therefore, some can say that it is you advocating the violation of human rights by stating that no other rights exist whatsoever other than your own. That's why the rights are not inherited human rights nor fundamental rights, since such things would be fact if so, but in reality they are perceptual and based on opinion. My opinion is that under most circumstances the woman's right to choice is dominant and binding; but I can objectively weigh other factors as well in determining cases and times when other rights supersede those. You have every right to hold onto your rigid view of 'only the woman's rights matter' and I have every right to hold onto my more broad view that there can be multiple rights taken into consideration. It doesn't make me sanctimonious to hold such an opinion, and if anything is amusing it is your assertion that it does.

I made my opinion clear and answered honestly the question about penalties, and surmised that they should be somewhere in the structure of what currently exists for contempt of court or when one disobeys a direct court order.

"And what would your answer be if the question was what penalties should be imposed for, oh, being Jewish and refusing to wear a yellow star? Speaking in public against your president's foreign policy? Engaging in sexual activities with a member of the same sex?"

Again, :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Are you actually serious? Sorry, but to me this speaks volumes towards your inability to argue the position reasonably. To compare Jews not wearing stars, speaking dissent, and homosexual activity to the right of the father to have some say in the life or death of his child, is one of the greatest violations of logic I've ever seen towards this argument. I mean, wow, holy cow!

"A decent person would say "mu": the question is loaded with a false ... and unspeakably offensive ... premise, and I will not accept it as any question at all."

Silly, silly, silly. That's what I think of a concept that declares someone else's personal opinion as 'unspeakably offensive' merely because it doesn't align with your own. There is MUCH room within the issue of abortion for debate and differing perceptions and opinions. Just because you hold the opinion that your view is the be all end all opinion of all does not make someone else's 'unspeakably offensive'. That's just really really silly; sorry.

"Which is exactly what your answer should have been. What should the penalty be if a woman exercises her fundamental human right to reproductive choice? MU."

Don't tell me what my answer should have been. Who do you think you are? Like I said; you are not the be all end all with this. Furthermore, I'm not going to retype my reply up-post about the fundamental human right. There is no such fundamental right of reproductive choice. There is only a derived right based on perception (which I most times agree with).


When you are up to the level of response required to actually engage in a real discussion, let me know. Until then, bye!

"When I find it advisable to engage in any discussion of what the penalties should be for me or any other woman exercising our fundamental human rights, I'll let you know. Don't be holding your breath, now."

Well, got news for ya: Ya did just engage in such discussion; though I found most of it to be a bit silly. But again, I notice you keep throwing the whole 'fundamental human right' thing around. Hey, feel free to think that, but there is no fundamental right no matter how many times you repeat it.

[Madspirit]

86. Penalties

Yes, we can fill the jails with women who had abortions. Disturbing, isn't it?
Lee

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

89. Bit Disingenuous Of An Assertion, No?

You seem to be implying that I was advocating jail for women who had abortions overall, as opposed to the very limited circumstance of only when a court orders her not to based on the father of the child being able to show in court that his desire for the child to be born outweighed her desire for it not to be. It is a limited circumstance only in which I was advocating such action, and such action would be due to a direct violation of a court order; not due to having an abortion itself. So I found your post to be a bit disingenuous in what it was attempting to portray compared to what the real issue being discussed was.

[Madspirit]

90. Self-Delete..n/t

[Scout]

93. "his desire for the child to be born outweighed her desire for it not to be"

now there's some sanctimonious crap for ya' right there

how 'bout just cutting to the chase of what I'm pretty sure you really mean "incubate my seed and shut up about it, bitch"

:puke:

[Karenina]

124. How about when the light bulb suddenly goes on?

:think: When is a woman "too far along" to salvage her own life and soul?
Have you ever known a woman who gets to her wedding day and finally acknowledges the misgivings she's been stuffing down for however long? Or one who has said "Everything CHANGED the moment that ring was on my finger?" Or one whose bc failed being pressured into going through with it? (It's DONE now, just make the best of it, dear). Or one whose partner, once she's pregnant, reveals his true nature; becomes controlling or abusive, whips out his collection of women's clothing and his buddy (who exhibits nothing but contempt for her) becomes a permanent fixture on the living room couch? Or she comes into closer contact with his highly dysfunctional family, his interactions with them and realizes she wants NO PART OF IT, does NOT want to bring a child into the mix which would seal her connexion to him and his nutcase relations forever? How about the sudden realization, "THIS GUY IS A COMPLETE ASSHOLE!" :think:

At WHAT POINT does a woman no longer have the "right" to defend her body, soul, hopes, dreams, individuality and sovereignty?

Many seem to sincerely believe, if HIS seed hits the mark, HE OWNS HER AND HER BODY FUNCTIONS and has the "right" to command delivery of the "goods." But, of course, if the "product" is unpleasing to him ALL BETS ARE OFF...

[mrreowwr_kittty]

91. Obviously, more than jail is needed for those recalcitrant abortion harlots

Some torture might be in order. Round them up and send them to Gitmo-style detainment camps where they can be 're-educated' via waterboarding and sleep deprivation to accept their roles as incubators. How dare they reject their owners' sperm! :sarcasm:

[DURHAM D]

94. Ok, about your number 2. If you want it so bad I will just

take it out and give it to you. Good luck with that.

[Book Lover]

75. Hmmmm. Just thinking out loud here...

I would imagine that a paternity test would be required first, in order to establish factually that the man bringing the complaint to Family Court is actually the father. Anyone know if that can be done so early in a pregnancy?

And then an inevitable result will be that some women will reject the court's decision; what is done when a woman has an abortion anyway? Would a fine or jail time be the appropriate punishment?

The image I have in my mind, putting myself in this situation: there I am, in a courtroom I don't want to be in, with a fetus inside me that I don't want, and hearing a judge tell me that I must carry the fetus to term under pain of fine or imprisonment, or both... I really do understand your desire to bring the father's desires into the equation, but the scenario I describe seems too much of a nightmare to be fair. The first thing I would say to myself is, "Fuck this. I'm making an appointment today and to hell with these people..."

I really can't say anything to your third point; as you say, that's your own personal threshold. I wonder if that comes from your understanding of a typical fetus' gestational development at 18 weeks? Just asking...

on edit: Sorry - I didn't see that you had answered my question about punishment above...

[Book Lover]

83. Also trying to think from the man's POV...

I would imagine that if the desire to be a father comes from a genuine desire to be a father to a child, his child, that hearing his partner say that she doesn't want to be part of that would be heartbreaking. But we also have to consider the abusive male partner, the one who wants to be a father because making his former partner bear and deliver the child he wants is in his mind her "just desserts". And I am sure there would be instances where there's a little from column a and a little from column b going on in the father's head...

I don't know. Are you a father? If so, what went through your mind when you found out your partner was pregnant, if I may ask?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

95. I Appreciate Your Replies And Thoughtfulness To The Issue.

In response to your valid premise of an abusive male partner, I would hope that such a risk would be all but made impossible based on the hearing and the facts that would come out. When I say that the father's desire should carry some weight and have some legal recourse, I do not mean that he should have an equal weight. I think the decision up front should always lean towards the mother's favor and that the father would have a higher bar to reach to have a decision in his favor. For example, it would have to be shown pretty decisively that the woman can mentally handle the pregnancy, that under normal circumstances there are no pre-existing physical conditions that would make the pregnancy a risk, that the fetus is healthy, that financially the child can be reasonably supported after birth, that the father is nurturing and genuine in intention, that he can reasonably provide for the child financially and emotionally, that he is of sound mental health, and that his hurt from having the child aborted would be of more severity than the woman would bear from carrying the child. These and other things would need to be thoroughly presented at the hearing and would still be left up to a reasonable judge's discretion as to whether the bar has been reached to supersede the mother's right to autonomy and declare the pregnancy continue with honorable intent.

I know that's complicated and is in no way perfect; but neither scenario is perfect. That's what makes the debate complicated in my opinion and open to perception and personal deduction. Inherent in any side of the abortion debate and any sub-topic within it is the flaw of risk of one or more parties or concepts lacking fairness. That's why all any of us can do is discern for ourselves what the fairest outcome or opinion of any aspect of the debate is. Personally, I don't think a concept of 'I can kill our unborn baby and you as the father has absolutely no say in it at all' is fair. I don't think a concept of 'I want the child so you have to bear it no matter what' is fair either. I can only take a mix of the two and come up with something as fair as I can, though inherently imperfect based on the reality of the debate itself.

As far as am I a father; yes, I am. Two beautiful boys ages 20 months and 3 1/2 years. My oldest (3 1/2) is the reason I have forever changed my opinion on abortion. For my entire life up until the start of my wife's pregnancy, I had always been a staunch pro-choicer without fail and had little or no respect for a developing fetus. I would present the argument that it wasn't really a child and had no awareness of its existence; and therefore aborting it was just harmless and an inherent right of the mother. But that all changed for me during the pregnancy.

When we both found out she was pregnant (same time since we were both in the bathroom and watched the stick develop its lines together) we were shocked, scared but mostly ecstatic. It was exciting for us, having been married a little over a year. The first few days, I was privately apprehensive. I found myself pacing alone outside (during my cigarette breaks) wondering if I'd be a good father, if we were financially ready, if we were emotionally ready or if I truly wanted a child at that time. I'd ponder to myself if I should try and sway her to abort. Ultimately, within two days, I abandoned all those things and accepted firmly that I'd be fine, that I wanted the child and that I was super excited after all that we were surprisingly pregnant. The rest of the week was awesome, with us telling our immediate relatives and talking so excitedly about what was to come. We'd stay up all night reading about pregnancy online and learning about it.

Then, out of nowhere, exactly a week after we learned she was pregnant, she had a severe bleeding episode. She had clumps of tissue and stuff come out and blood was all over her hands and the bathroom floor. She was screaming in terror and frightened as can be that she just lost our baby and we both were crying. I thought for certain she had.

I rushed her to the hospital and we told them what happened. After some initial quick tests they had said her hcg and estrogen levels were quite low and that there was a good chance we did just lose the baby. It was so cold in there. It was the middle of the night and the surrounding seemed so desolate. Time went by so slowly. I went outside to smoke and I prayed to God so hard, SO HARD, to please have our baby be ok. We had to wait. We had to wait for hours for the ultrasound tech to drive in from an hour and a half away, after first being awoken in the middle of the night. Everyone had the tone that things just didn't look good, based on what we described (the clumps of tissue etc), the amount of blood, and the hormone levels. Time stood still. We were both so scared. We wanted this. We wanted this baby so badly now.

Finally, after what seemed like an eternity, the tech came in and wheeled her upstairs. We were about to get our first ultrasound. We were terrified. But they gelled her up and turned it on, and almost immediately I saw a peanut sack with a perfect little circle in the middle. My face beamed! I just knew that was our little guy. I just knew it! They wouldn't confirm anything and told us we had to see a gyno and it would be a few weeks, based on hormones etc, before we'd know for sure if the sac was a fetus and still healthy. But I knew in my heart it was. It was a miracle to me. Our peanut was still there.

In the end of it all, everything obviously turned out ok and now we are the proud parents of one of the most charismatic, adorable and blow your mind funny toddlers I've ever known. I never thought I could feel such love towards something. But what changed me forever on that day years back; changed my perception forever with abortion and my opinion of what a fetus was; was looking at that ultrasound. At that moment, at 3:45 in the morning after the longest night in history, when I saw that peanut on the screen, the last thing it was was a clump of cells. That was my baby up there. My child. He was still there. He was still ok. By some grace of God she hadn't miscarried. It might've been tiny, undeveloped and unaware, but it was my baby. It is still my baby. He's only a few feet away from me right now; that little clump of cells. Never again will I just think of a fetus in such simplistic ways and it has forever changed me when I consider a fetus being aborted. As far as the father's rights argument, that isn't rooted in any personal experience since my wife wanted each of our children with as much or more vigor as I. But thinking back to that night in the hospital; the way I prayed, the way I felt, the way I hurt, the joy that overcame me upon realizing we still had hope; I couldn't imagine if right then and there she said 'ya know what, just suck it out of me, I don't want it'. If such a thing were to happen, I would've used every avenue I could've possibly thought of to stop that from occurring. I can't imagine how horrible that must be for some fathers who would be as passionate as wanting their child to survive, only to have no recourse whatsoever.

So that's my LONG ass reply to your questions. As a last bit of ancillary info, to this day (and doctors can't say definitively either way) we are convinced that what happened that night was the miscarriage of a twin. We'll never know for sure, but based on everything I've learned, read and experienced I firmly believe that's what occurred. We can deal with that though, since we'll never know for sure and because we still have our beautiful boy here with us.

Goodnight,

OMC

[Madspirit]

98. I am VERY glad

I am very glad you have wonderful babies and that your older one was fine after such a harrowing experience. That must have been just grueling.
Peace with you.
Lee

[Greyhound]

101. So you only advocate a little slavery for over half the population. Referring to #3. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

135. If Only Your Post Made Any Sense Whatsoever, I'd Be Able To Respond To It.

But the reality is that it made absolutely no sense whatsoever. And I'm stunned by your insinuation that 6 weeks of pregnancy is equivalent to slavery. I think you need to brush up on the history of slavery and how much more monumentally severe it is then your comparison. I mean, holy cow.

[Greyhound]

144. It's quite simple and if you were on the wrong end you would see it clearly.

Either we are free, autonomous people, or we are slaves of the state, like pregnancy, there is no middle ground.

[Scout]

147. the whole point of slavery was that SOMEONE ELSE had the ultimate control

over your body (if you were a slave) and that slave women were FORCED TO BREED more slaves whether they wanted to or not.

I mean, holy cow.

:puke:

[omega minimo]

132. Again It's All About You. Same Error Made By Those Imposing On Other's Reproductive Privacy Rights

:thumbsup:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

134. Again, Your Provocative Declaration Without Supporting Argument Is False.

As did every other person in this thread, and as per common sense logic as to what is inherent within somebody posting on a message board in response to a subject, I offered my honest opinion.

Now I couldn't help but notice you replied to my opinion with no substantial return argument nor reasoning for your opposing viewpoint, but instead only with personal attack and provocation.

Now granted, I can't stop you from partaking in such behavior or engaging me in such ways. But I still got a laugh out of how you chimed in with an attack stating I was making it 'all about me', merely because I gave my opinion on the OP. If I'm guilty of making it all about me by doing such, then so is every other damn person in the thread. But that would be monumentally silly of a concept to throw around such accusations based on people replying to threads with their opinions on them. I mean, are you advocating a message board here in which we all don't offer opinion, but instead only respond with replies of "Thank you for writing the OP."? Do you really think such a concept on a topical message board such as this would be called for? I'd say DU is as great as it is because such ridiculous concepts are not part of our community here. So spare me your accusations of 'making it all about me' merely because I respond to an OP. The premise of your personal smear is ludicrous on its face is it not?

If you choose to respond to a post of mine please do so with honorable intention and in the spirit of responding to the context and offering substance for your viewpoint if you outwardly attack mine. If not, then I ask for you to not respond at all, and therefore save us both a bunch of time. Thanks. :hi:

[omega minimo]

137. Huh

:wow:


If you choose to, you can see the sense in my post, which is excruciatingly (oops-- there's a vocabulary word for ya, freebie!) clear:


"Again It's All About You."

Maybe you actually are unaware of the fact that Every One Of Your Posts Is Self Referential. You Always Refer To Yourself.

Which is a good example of the second point:

"Same Error Made By Those Imposing On Other's Reproductive Privacy Rights."

Those who put their own selves in FRONT of their comprehension of the concept of the RIGHTS of other people are making the same mistake.

Hope that's "substantial" enough for you to understand that privacy rights mean just that.


Posted by OPERATIONMINDCRIME
"Again, Your Provocative Declaration Without Supporting Argument Is False." "...but instead only with personal attack and provocation....." ".... you chimed in with an attack..." "....The premise of your personal smear...."

Your nonsense reversals don't make any sense. If you don't like being called on the fact that you always reference yourself in your posts and if you always assume that a counter to your hyperbole is an "attack," then maybe you need to a hobby.

B-)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

138. ........

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

[Karenina]

145. Everyone should have a hobby!

Roger Cicero explains they mentality you've confronted on his CD, "Männersachen."

"Ich bin ein Dichter ein Denker
ein Richter ein Henker
ein Sänger ein Lover
der Typ auf dem Cover
ich bin ein Stürmer ein Spieler
das Vorbild so vieler
ein Meister ein Sieger
die oberste Liga
ich versteh mich als Renner
als Könner und Kenner
als Gangster ein Bringer
ein ganz schlimmer Finger
der Beste im Team
der Kopf vom Regime
Funktionär , Offizier
was sagst Du zu mir ?

Zieh die Schuh´aus!
bring den Müll raus!
paß aufs Kind auf!
und dann räum hier auf!
geh nicht spät aus!
nicht wieder bis um eins
Ich verstehe was du sagst
Aber nicht was du meinst."
:evilgrin:

[Solly Mack]

70. I've a womb and a view...and that's the only view allowed

Folks just need to get over themselves. I know I'm over them.

[DURHAM D]

96. Amen.

[NaturalHigh]

82. I've been told for years that as a man...

abortion is none of my business. According to some, my opinion of abortion has no merit because of my gender.

Fine by me. Don't expect me to get worked up over the Supreme Court decision banning partial-birth abortion. I have no opinion of it. It doesn't affect me or my family, so it's none of my business.

[Madspirit]

84. I don't think

I don't think your opinion has no merit. I just don't think it should have any legal weight.
Lee

[BoneDaddy]

112. Don't you love how your opinion

only really matters to these women when they want you to support them. If you happen to disagree or have a different opinion, then we should just be quiet about it. Wow, that sounds awfully familiar, you know, the way women were treated? But now they want the reverse and that is ok because they want to hold the power, act the way men did and expect men to just sit back and allow it...lol.

Hell no.

[Madspirit]

122. *snort*

"reverse" things.....

You mean you can get pregnant now? I thought not.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Lee

[BoneDaddy]

142. obviously

you must have a learning disability or some mental block that stops you from really comprehending what I write. I am not talking about rights to reproduction, I support your right to body entirely, but to tell me that I don't have a right to an opinion about it as that smacks of utter hypocrisy. See you want it both ways, you want power and you also want a certain amount of revenge, whether that be fueled by your own personal tragedy at the hands of men in your history or the big MEN you can attack in the auspices of patriarchy thereby making it OK in your eyes.

I just think your attitude towards men really sucks and when you get called out on your bull, you cry wolf and play the victim.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

123. And I love your zero-sum thinking

Either men control everything OR women control everything. No middle ground. Any gains women make automatically mean men lose. And either women agree with your opinion or they are depriving you of your right to have one.

[NaturalHigh]

126. Actually, I've been told plenty of times that my opinion...

about abortion is meaningless because I'm a man and that the subject is none of my business. Then when the Supreme Court rules that it is okay to ban ONE abortion procedure, I'm supposed to get indignant about it. If it's none of my business, why should I care? It doesn't affect me or my family, so why should I have an opinion about it? Why should someone's views of abortion affect how I vote, for that matter?

[BoneDaddy]

140. I am talking about

the attitudes of many of the women in here who think they have a right to be able to say whatever they want about men and have zero accountability. I would love a world where the sexes are equal but I will not watch bad sexist behavior in the wolf guise of radical feminism.

[spoony]

130. I suspect you'll catch hell for that, but you're right.

So I'll share some of the flames. :P

[mondo joe]

92. The same bizarro world that says what you can put in your veins, or smoke.

Democracy, unfortunately, means people can vote on legal matters - including rights.

Don't forget, the Constitution can be amended by vote.

I am, incidentally, completely pro choice.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[Madspirit]

121. Glad I missed the oinker

...and if only they knew me. They would be so ashamed. In RL actually, most...MOST...of my closest friends are straight men. They just are not PIGS. They are really nice straight men...and non-sexist and not so insecure in their own masculinity they have to go around attacking women. This guy is a straight-up abuser. Abuser. Abusive. Sexist and attacking. I am so very glad their message was deleted. Thanks for alerting on it.
Lee

[SteelPenguin]

111. It's because you single out men.

Should men get to vote on whether you have an abortion? No. Neither should other women. You state yourself you don't want anyone be they man, woman, state, or god, to tell you want to do with your own body, and I absolutely agree with that.

What I don't agree with is that you imply other places, including that other poll, that men specificly shouldn't have a right to a legal say in the issue, while women should.

That's where I have a problem. I don't think either man nor woman should have a say legally in what you do with your body (though they both unfortunately do in an indirect way). Just because a woman in Plano Texas has a uterus doesn't give her more a say in what you do with your body, than mine because I don't have one. If one has a right, the other should have it, though when it comes down to this issue nobody should have that right.

[Madspirit]

120. You are absolutely correct.

No one SHOULD have a say in what I do with my body. You're right. I would no more want Phyllis Shaffley, (sp.) to make my decisions than I would want George Bush to. I think we should be like Canada and it shouldn't even be votable. It should be a set-aside Right...self determination over my own body.

Lee

[Erika]

141. Your body doesn't suffer the fatigue or the danger

that a woman's body does. Why is that so hard for you to understand? You don't suffer the fatigue and danger,
keep your mouth shut.

You can control abortions by keeping your zipper shut.

[SteelPenguin]

149. Not as long as this is a free country

I'll educate myself, dicuss, and yes vote on every issue common to our society.

The argument that one group can't vote on an issue because it doesn't directly affect them is ludicrous and unconstitutional.

[uppityperson]

136. Whitehouse.org has a poster for you about why some disagree

[question everything]

139. Is it true that Kucinich was opposed to abortion

until he decided to run in 2004?

[iverglas]

146. I would put it this way

Kucinich was anti-choice until he saw the light.

There was much discussion of his conversion at DU back when it happened, and his statement at the time was posted; unfortunately, I haven't been able to find it lately. It was terrific.

It wasn't any of this "safe, legal and rare" crap, or whinging about how abortion is an awful thing but we have to let it happen because blah blah.

It was a straight-up statement that the right to abortion was essential to women's autonomy. As far as I could tell, he got it. I suspect that he'd been subjected to a few late-night head bashings by people who had it already, but however it happened, he seemed to get it and to be speaking it loud and proud.

I can't get the damned "full quotes" link here to work:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm
but the list seems to trace his evolution on the subject:

* Women's right-to-choose is essential to gender equality. (Nov 2006)
* Abortions should always be legal. (Jan 2004)
* Shifted to pro-choice when women's health became at risk. (Dec 2003)
* All men & women have right to make difficult moral decisions. (Aug 2003)
* Supreme Court nominees must agree to uphold Roe v. Wade. (Apr 2003)
* Journey in 2002 from pro-life to pro-choice. (Apr 2003)
* Women can't be free unless they have the right to choose. (Apr 2003)
* Prevention, education, & health care, to minimize abortions. (Apr 2003)
* Life begins at conception. (Jul 1996)
* Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
* Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother's life. (Oct 2003)
* Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
* Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
* Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)

Before 2002, he had a pretty horrific record.

So I can definitely understand people having been wary of his conversion initially, but it looks genuine to me.

Ah, here we are; Google got that link for me:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Abortion.htm

I have come to believe that it's not simply about the right to choose, but about a woman's role in society as being free and having agency and having the ability to make her own decisions. That a woman can't be free unless she has this right.
Source: Campaign website, www.Kucinich.org, "On The Issues" Apr 1, 2003

I've had a journey on the issue {of reproductive rights}. A year ago, before I became a candidate for President, I broke from a voting record that had not been pro-choice. After hearing from many women in my own life, and from women and men in my community and across the country, I began a more intensive dialogue on the issue. A lot of women opened their hearts to me. That dialogue led me to wholeheartedly support a woman's right to choose.
Source: Campaign website, www.Kucinich.org, "On The Issues" Apr 1, 2003

"Opened their hearts to me". ;) Like I said, I think he got his head bashed by a lot of progressive people who were willing to do the work because the end result of a progressive pro-choice candidate was worth it.

[question everything]

148. Thanks. Still interesting that this conversion

happened as he decided to run for national office but will take this wherever we can.

[Kool Kitty]

143. I have often wondered how men would feel if the

Supreme Court passed laws directly related to them, like reproduction? Laws that directly affected their bodies. (I know I'm not phrasing this very well.) These laws are direct invasions of a woman's body. These are the most personal things. They are telling us they know better than we what should be done with our bodies, our own flesh. And the justice that wrote that he was doing this to protect women? From who-ourselves? From things we "shouldn't worry our pretty little heads over"? Daddy knows best? How fucking demeaning is this? This is so insulting, I could scream. I can decide what I will do with my life and my body myself. This is no one's business but mine and whoever I choose to share it with. MINE. Not the Supreme Court's. Not the government's.