For all the lurking men & women, if you're against abortion

[pacalo]

don't get one!

But don't dictate your self-righteous, hypocritical views to other women's right to make that medical decision with her doctor. You are familiar with privacy laws & legally-binding doctor/patient confidentiality agreements?

And you men who demean a woman's right to choose:

wear a condom!

:rant:

Just saw Rachels show about Dr. Tiller. :grr:

[ZombieHorde]

1. Rec. nt

[johnroshan]

2. I respectfully disagree.

I believe that most progressive people who are against abortion or even doubtful about it (Like me) do so not because they want to impose their rules on you or your body. You have to understand that some of us are not sure about whether the fetus represents human life and should it have legal protections that you and I enjoy.

Reducing the argument to a much simpler one that "THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS!!!1!!" is disingenuous. I do agree that some of the conservatives do try to impose their "morals" onto the rest, but I don't think progressives against or even doubtful about abortion want anything to do with your rights to your body.

Definition of human life is still very much under confusion, does it start at the moment of conception? does it start when the baby is born? does it start 2, 4, or 6 months into the pregnancy? What about prematurely born babies?

Sometimes progressives can be so caught up in propaganda lines... We're humans too, after all.


Psst : sorry for starting up the shitstorm.

[REP]

3. When is "conception"? Fertilization or implantation?

Yes, it is disingenuous to talk about the 'rights' of an eight-celled zygote when it there is a woman involved - a thinking, breathing, feeling woman. I really wonder about those who get so worked up about the 'rights' zygotes, embryos and fetuses yet can dismiss those of women so easily.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. What about the rights of the babies once they are born?

These anti-choice assholes don't give a shit about the babies. They murder doctors and bomb clinics to protest fetuses. But once they are born and become real live human beings, poof! they no longer matter.

[roguevalley]

7. HEAR! HEAR!

[DenverDad]

39. That's what has bothered me for years

about the "pro-life" movement. The people who want to protect the unborn are the same people who want to cut all the social programs that would help the family once the child IS born. These same people would prefer their tax dollars go to pay for wars. So much for the sanctity of life, huh?

I've believed for awhile, that their motivation is to "punish" the mother for "immoral" behavior.

They don't see it as a child, as much as a consequence.

[eridani]

77. If they saw a fetus as a child, would they wave around jars of fetuses in formaldehyde?

Would they want one of their oen newborn kids who had died shortly after birth to be treated that way? Obviously not. They are acting exactly as if they didn't think of the fetus as human.

[Abq_Sarah]

81. That's something that's always bugged the shit out of me

If it's about respect for human life, how could they plaster pictures of aborted fetuses on the side of trucks?

[Maraya1969]

218. That is a good point. I can't stand those picture and they seem to have no problems with them.

[raccoon]

107. "their motivation is to "punish" the mother for "immoral" behavior. "

Exactly, DD.

[rhett o rick]

173. A lot of "them" dont think, they just follow their bully leaders. nm

[Marr]

263. Very well put.

You've articulated something I've never been able to quite reconcile.

[fishwax]

64. +1

:kick:

[Auntie Bush]

115. +1000

[ProfessionalLeftist]

131. That is what gives lie to their pretense right there..

..they do not care about babies or children in general. They only care about them when they are physically attached to and part of a woman's body. Beyond that, the lives of babies or children are irrelevant to them.

What does that mean?

It means that their true objective is not 'saving' unborn babies. It is controlling women. That women have a uterus and are able to incubate offspring within it is just something they use to do so. They want to put a leash on womens' uterus to drag them around by and control them with.

It's a method not a moral.

[rhett o rick]

172. The US has the highest infant mortality of all modern nations. "You are required to deliver the baby

but then they dont care if the baby dies".

[fascisthunter]

207. the pro-Life movement was a perfect disguise for a bunch of sociopaths that want...

to be what their priests tell them is righteous because they themselves have no moral compass... they are sociopaths(NOT ALL)... born without the necessary ability to feel empathy for others. If it isn't that way for some, I guarantee their dad's beat it out of them. These people are sick. No rational individual could possibly choose a fetus over a living breathing human being. You see how these fuckers vote when it comes to human needs... they don't care because they can't. And the irony, those that look up to sociopaths usually are those with a conscience who mistaken apathy for courage.

[BrklynLiberal]

220. + a brazillion!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[johnroshan]

9. You still haven't answered the question.

When does human life start?

[BanzaiBonnie]

15. Not going there

That's not going to get us anywhere.

I agree with what others have said. It's a medical decision, between me and my doctor. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. You have a choice, I have a choice.

[Lars39]

16. Doesn't matter, if the woman is not willing or able to continue the pregnancy.

[musette_sf]

20. Whoa whoa whoa,

it was all about "respectfully" in your first post in this thread. But I see that's now over with for you.

If you want to legislate "EQUALITY" for a single-cell fertilized egg, you think the living, breathing WOMAN's "human life" should be relegated to that of livestock.

As for "life", I suggest you get one that doesn't include haranguing living, breathing people about how the "rights" of a single-celled organism should immediately erase the RIGHTS of the living, breathing WOMAN.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. It doesn't.

"Life" started 4.7 billion years ago. Sperms and eggs are "alive", just as fertilized eggs and fetuses are. Problem is, fetuses are wholly dependent upon the body of another to grow into an individual human being that we recognize as having "rights". Granting "rights" to the fertilized egg inside the woman's body takes AWAY rights from the individual woman, because it says that she is under some legal obligation to provide her body for the use of another.

If a homeless person showed up in your garage, could the government tell you you had to give him or her a kidney transplant?

[xmas74]

24. If you have the answers you answer the question.

All I know is that there are other factors involved. I've never wanted an abortion and have never had one but I'll be damned if I'd stop another woman from making her own choice. I don't know her reasons and I don't think that anyone needs to explain to me why they would want an abortion. It's her choice and she has to live with the consequences, not anyone else.

[ohheckyeah]

26. According to who or what? n/t

[Arkana]

30. Why does this even matter?

If you don't like abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE. But the right to terminate a pregnancy is a sacred one and it's something women should never, ever be denied--because without it they turn into powerless breeding factories.

[immoderate]

32. About 400 million years ago with a single cell.

Life is continuous. That's why you are confused. Something that could be a person, is not necessarily a person.

I can't imagine why someone would dwell on a question that doesn't have an answer. :shrug:

--imm

[RaleighNCDUer]

34. According to the Bible, at first breath, when God breathes the

soul into the child.

So when we argue for the point of viability, we are being WAAAY careful.

[Hugabear]

42. Why does it fucking matter?

It's the woman's body - it's her choice, it sure as hell isn't your choice!

[Zoeisright]

45. Nobody knows. That what it says in the original Roe v. Wade decision.

Which is why it's an individual decision, for each WOMAN to make for HERSELF.

[pacalo]

63. Stop playing God with other people's personal business.

Stop playing a doctor & making other people's medical decisions.

Don't tell a man that his wife won't be able to live in order to save a baby.

You don't care about the child after it's born if it might cost taxpayers' dollars.

And, btw, you do know that lots of innocent civilians are killed during war? That living in a war-torn country is like living in a tornado-ravaged area, without the basic necessities that we take for granted?

Have you thought about how much better off financially this country would be if not for the $1.3 trillion thrown to the wind on two wars? What do we have to show for it?

[REP]

69. It started millions of years ago and continues to this day

You didn't answer my question. Is "conception" fertilization or implantation? Is a sperm alive and human? Is an egg alive and human before fertilization?

[TorchTheWitch]

78. it doesn't matter

Anyone can decide for themselves when life "starts", but that isn't the point. The point is should the rights of a fetus OVERRIDE the rights of a woman. This country has long since already decided that a person isn't a person until they are born which is why a fetus can't be counted as a child on taxes, why birth certificates are assigned, why we count our years of life from the date of birth, etc. We ALREADY don't recognize a child as a fully fledged and INDIVIDUAL person deserving of rights until it is born. Even medically a fetus is not an individual person since until its life support system is severed from the mother it is still a PART of the mother... essentially a parasite. Until a child (baby, fetus, clump of cells - whatever you want to call it) is a SEPARATE and INDIVIDUAL person independent of its mother's life support system its rights can never OVERRIDE the rights of the already recognized INDIVIDUAL person - the mother.

Curtailing and/or eliminating abortion rights has ALWAYS been about controlling women and the bizarre desire to punish women for having sex.

[johnroshan]

83. Thanks...

That was a rational response. I'm not sure about the last line though. I think the people who are against abortion are not yet convinced on the assumptions of your first paragraph.

[Hello_Kitty]

190. Anti-abortion activists have a goal of banning abortion AND contraception

After Roe their next target is Griswold.

[TorchTheWitch]

257. Of course they're convinced - even if they need to be

shown what they really believe because they're too stupid to see it.

If they believe that capital punishment is ok, then they don't really believe that all human life is sacred.

If they believe killing in self-defense is ok, then they don't really believe that all human life is sacred.

If they believe that killing in war is ok, then they don't really believe that all human life is sacred.

If they believe that abortion is ok in cases of rape or incest or the risk of health or life of the mother, then they don't really believe that all human life is sacred and don't really believe that "life" in the womb is as sacred as that outside of it.

If they believe that a fetus (baby, clump of cells - whatever they want to call it) can't receive tax benefits just like a born child can, then they don't really believe that all human life is sacred and don't really believe that "life" in the womb is as sacred as that outside of it.

If they count they're years of life from their date of birth, then they don't really believe that all human life is sacred and don't really believe that "life" in the womb is as sacred as that outside of it.

I could go on and on, but here's a deciding question to ask any "pro-lifer"...

There is a fire in a building in which there is a new born baby and a jar of viable fertilized human eggs, but only EITHER the baby or the jar can be saved and they can only be saved by you... which one would you chose to save?

The answer is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS the new born baby whether they like it or not because they ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS felt that even ONE new born human life is FAR more sacred than even MANY fertilized eggs.

Whenever you argue with "pro-lifers" it ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS comes down to them finally having no leg to stand on and frustratedly blurting out "IF SHE DIDN'T WANT TO RISK GETTING PREGNANT SHE SHOULD HAVE KEPT HER LEGS CLOSED." ALWAYS.

Yes, it absolutely DOES come down to wanting to control women and punishing them for having sex even when they're too stupid to realize it. ALWAYS HAS. ALWAYS WILL.

[Gormy Cuss]

272. People who are against abortion have personalized it and decided for themselves.

Believing that they can decide for others is where the argument falls flat.

[eShirl]

82. to borrow a phrase, show me the birth certificate. n/t

[jeff47]

99. There's a couple errors in your question.

We don't have a definition of "life" that works. Biologists have not had a working definition of life for about 100 years now.

Each time they try to come up with a reasonable definition, we find a new form of creature that is obviously 'alive', yet doesn't fit the definition of life. They gave up trying to define life in the 60's with the discovery of prions.

Secondly, trying to move the assertion of rights from birth to conception means a legal assault on women. 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. What crime should we charge these women with? Is it manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide? Under your definition, a human died while in their care. We don't just let people off for killing another person.

Plus, that 25% figure is only pregnancies where the woman knows she's pregnant. There's probably a lot more pregnancies which miscarry in the first month, so she doesn't know she's pregnant. Clearly, we'll need all women to submit their tampons and pads to the state to ensure they didn't kill any babies.

[Amaril]

118. No one can answer that question with absolute certainty

Which is exactly why it should remain every woman's right to make that decision based on her own beliefs. You believe life begins at conception? Perfect. Personally, I believe that a fetus becomes a "person" the moment it is developed enough to survive on its own outside the mother's body.

Carrying a child can be a physically and emotionally taxing experience -- not to mention (in some cases) life threatening. It is inconceivable to me that anyone would even suggest a woman should be forced to carry a child against her will.

[ehrnst]

120. Millions of years ago. (nt)

[ehrnst]

122. Doesn't matter - you're alive, and I don't have the right to the use of your body to live.

Why should the fetus have more rights to another's body than their born siblings?

[uppityperson]

125. First define what you mean by "life". Do you mean having a soul, or simply cells dividing, or what?

[BoWanZi]

129. I don't like abortion, don't personally support their use except in medical emergencies however...

...I do support a woman's right to choose but I have always been bothered by how so many pro-choicers evade the direct question of when does life start. They are always side-stepping the question with responses like "why does it matter?" or "that isn't important, its the woman's body and her choice after all" and so on.

That bothers me because then the pro-lifers can still dig and dig at the pro-choicers and the moderates with their "when does life start?" mantra and chip away at the pro-choice support.

If we could strongly answer when does life start question with a legitimate response that doesn't look like we are ignoring the sanctity of life, then maybe we could start hitting back hard at one of the strongest anti-abortion arguments.

In a nutshell, a logical and well thought out direct non-sidestepping answer to the "when does life start question" is essential for the long-term survival of pro-choice. Once that question is logically answered, we can finally shut up the pro-lifers.

[jeff47]

139. Your suggestion is not possible.

We don't have a definition of "life" that works. Biologists have tried for more than 100 years, and keep finding new organisms that defy our previous definition. When prions were discovered in the 1960s, they gave up.

So, your proposal is to come up with a definition of what is alive and what is not alive, which science has already deemed impossible.

Or, if you want to be as talking-point obsessed as the anti-choice people, we could just give the answer "life on Earth started 2.7 billion years ago, creating a baby doesn't create life, it extends it." It's not like a fertilized egg is a hunk of granite.

[BoWanZi]

144. In a way, I agree with you but its still important.

And I'm not talking about "life" per-se but rather a way of defining when a soul enters the fetus. I know that a lot of people don't believe in souls or other faith based aspects of life, but the majority of pro-lifers do. If we could somehow give an arbitrary age to the fetus when it gets a soul, then we could probably get some sort of compromise which could hopefully stop these long drawn out battles between the pro-choice/lifers.

I would just love it if the govt would put a law on the books that says "life defined as a human begins at 12 weeks due to the viability of the fetus". That way you could get a law on the books that bans casual abortions after say 3 months and only allow medically necessary abortions but yet still gives a woman a choice.

I know it won't shut up a lot of the pro-lifers but having a law on the books that states life begins at xxx will do a lot to stifle their attempts at banning all abortions. We could throw the whole "life begins at 3 months, a woman has the right to choose up to that point" argument right back in their face.

[ehrnst]

152. You are trying to define "personhood" rather than "life."

Which involves rights separate from the woman carrying it.

Again - you would not deny that a 45 year old is a independently existing person - fully, in every way.

But if that 45 year old got leukemia, and needed a perfect bone marrow match, their right to that bone marrow is trumped by the right of someone to refuse to donate. Even if that person is their mother.

[jeff47]

155. Sorry, there's still a first amendment.

As such, we can't make law based on the Judeo-Christian belief of a soul.

And again your solution would not solve the problem. We had a nice, solid line of where a new human came into existence. It was called birth. We literally used that nice solid line for millennia.

Then the anti-choice people started trying to move that line. Your proposal is to enshrine that assault on women as law. And you'll also provide a wonderful vector for anti-choice people to ban abortion, by moving that date back.

The anti-choice movement has never been satisfied by any previous compromises, and they won't be satisfied by yours. The compromise just becomes their new starting point. They're like the Terminator: They will never, ever stop.

That's because the anti-choice movement has almost nothing to do with abortion. If that was actually what motivated them, they'd support all sorts of things to make it easier for women to have children. Such as subsidized daycare, better maternity leave, easy access to contraception, and so on. Anti-choice people fight against all of these.

[uppityperson]

156. what is a " casual abortion"? Please continue to define your terms, don't want to assume anything.

thank you

[Maru Kitteh]

198. Did you sleep through high-school health class or have you not had it yet?

I would just love it if the govt would put a law on the books that says "life defined as a human begins at 12 weeks due to the viability of the fetus".

You think fetuses are viable at 12 weeks. Simply AMAZING.


I think you'd serve yourself better to get your nose out of women's crotches and into an anatomy and physiology text.

[uppityperson]

211. aw, come on, this model looks viable, doesn't it? Pretty incredible.

[BoWanZi]

254. aww, come on, that was really uncalled for, I have no idea if 12 weeks is viable

it was just a number that I threw out there. Maybe 18 weeks? Maybe 24? I have no idea, I'm not an authority by any means. this is just my opinion on how to hopefully lessen the fighting.

[blueamy66]

227. Casual abortions?

Really?

[Mariana]

229. They really make it clear, don't they

how little respect they have for women. Casual abortions. Even when they're trying to pretend otherwise, the contempt they have for women shines right through.

[blueamy66]

261. Yeah, I guess so.

Who the hell ever had a "casual" abortion???

[BoWanZi]

253. boy, I wish I hadn't used the word "casual". I'm a casuality of repub proproganda!

I just think that if they enact such a definition as I outlined above and then compromised with limiting most non-medically-required abortions to before that definition, it would solve a lot of the bickering and fighting since there would be absolutes finally. And if the pro-lifers want to then go after shortening that definition, then have then prove the existence of the soul which is obviously not going to happen.

I'm just trying to think of making a way that can make 'most' people satisfied (not necessarily happy but satisfied nevertheless).

And how was using the phrase non-medically-required instead of casual? That better?

[Lars39]

266. No, because it excludes a woman's psychological wants and needs.

And quite a few women don't find out they're pregnant until after 12 weeks.

[uppityperson]

276. No, it is not better. "non-medically-required abortion" is not much better

"Medically-required" means women have to be seen by a doctor who prescribes an abortion.

First you assume most women just have a "casual abortion", like getting their nails done. Some may but why do you assume you have any right to pass moral judgment on them about it?

Now you want women to only be able to get a hygienic medical abortion if their doctor prescribes it?

I would call that rather patronizing and sexist. Poor little things just don't have any idea whether or not to get an abortion so gotta go talk with their doctor?

[BoWanZi]

279. Oh brother. I give up. I'm trying to think of some sort of compromise that could satisify all

and I just get beat up for it.

I don't care if they use 12 weeks or 36 weeks for the limit I proposed, just get some limit in there. Non-medically-required means *any* abortion by choice, not by medical necessity. Lose the casual term, I admitted that was wrong and I owned up to it.

I want to meet in the middle. It doesn't seem like either party can have it all and keep it all forever, things are going to give either way. Too much fighting against each other.

Sexist? Brother. Your last line of text is way off base from what I'm suggesting.

Read again what I'm suggesting, a hard limit on when a woman can choose to have an elective abortion unless medically necessary. I don't really care where they put that limit, if the 12 weeks is too early, then make it 20 weeks or 36 weeks or whatever.

All I'm seeing here is the pro-choicers want it ALL or nothing and the same for the pro-lifers, ALL or nothing. Good grief, why can't we meet in a middle ground.

And finally your 2nd to last line makes no sense compared to what I was suggesting. If there is a limit in place for elective abortions (say 20 weeks) but then a woman comes into the ER because of some sort of pregnancy induced emergency, then of course, give that woman an abortion if its needed for her survival but she still has the full elective choice to have an abortion up to say my theoretical 20 weeks. But I NEVER said that a woman could only get hygienic medical abortion. Stop putting words in my mouth.

[uppityperson]

281. Thank you for clarifying what you mean by "non-medically-required abortion". We HAVE met @ middle gr

I thought by putting a question mark at the end of the 2nd to last sentence, it turned it into a question. If I wasn't clear, I was questioning if that was what you meant. "Now you want women to only be able to get a hygienic medical abortion if their doctor prescribes it? " If I was "putting words in your (my) mouth", I'd have not made it into a question.

Stop taking offense if you post something that is unclear and we ask you about it or challenge you about it. IF you are asked or challenged, consider perhaps that you weren't clear.

We have met at the middle ground and it is called Roe v Wade. A woman can get an abortion for any reason she wants, does not have to give a reason, for a certain amount of time. I will not agree to any attempts to legislate there being a need for the first trimester.


If you are suggesting that we "meet in a middle ground" and give up more rights, have more restrictions on us, I will fight that. We have met at the middle ground already. Wanting to take away more rights is NOT "meeting in a middle ground".

[BoWanZi]

288. Honestly, I don't even know what restrictions are set in place by Roe vs Wade

With all the republican propaganda floating about, I got the impression that a woman could have an elective abortion right up to the actual birth date.

What is the cutoff date for Roe vs Wade abortions?

[uppityperson]

295. No. They can't. That. Is. A. Lie. Try here for starters for info on Roe v Wade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

[Mariana]

301. Why don't you stop spreading republican propaganda then?

YOU are contributing to "all that republican propaganda floating about". Why?

[uppityperson]

282. We already HAVE compromised with Roe v Wade. "Pro-lifers" want to take MORE rights away

Roe v Wade already compromises. It has limitations as far as viability is. Why do you ask "why can't we meet in a middle ground" when we already have?

[Mariana]

290. I think he believes that a woman can walk in

to a clinic anytime during pregnancy and have an abortion just because they want one. Plenty of RWers believe that there are NO limitations whatsoever on abortion. They think healthy women with healthy fetuses are casually deciding in their ninth month of pregnancy that they want an abortion, and can just casually go have it done.

[uppityperson]

296. Indeed.

Honestly, I don't even know what restrictions are set in place by Roe vs Wade

With all the republican propaganda floating about" I got the impression that a woman could have an elective abortion right up to the actual birth date."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=477874&mesg_id=492139

[ehrnst]

151. A 45 year old doesn't have the right to the use of their mother's body to live.

And there is no argument that a 45 year old has begun life.


The question is not "when does life begin?" it's "When do you owe the use of your body to another to sustain life?"

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

245. Deleted message

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

[rhett o rick]

174. The Big Bang. nm

[BobbyBoring]

176. Life begins

At birth. Hence the word birth. Something becomes a living, breathing, entity when it is born. Until birth, it's a fetus, or an embryo, or an egg.

Pretty simple huh?

[backscatter712]

233. I liked George Carlin's answer better.

I linked to the video below.

When does life begin? Conception? Birth?

Life began about 4.5 billion years ago and keeps rolling along in a continuous process.

[Missy Vixen]

197. Why do you want to know?

Considering the fact you'll never miss a period, perhaps you are the wrong one to lecture any woman what she can or cannot do with her uterus.

:eyes:

[roguevalley]

5. 'some of us'. Okay fine. Some of you don't like it. Don't get one.

I am sick of men and your sig name is male telling us what to do. Its as if we can't think such deep thoughts ourselves. We are not your property and until YOU can get PREGNANT, but out. I am sick of hearing male angst on this subject and their bullshit restrictions on my right and every other woman's right to decide what they have to do. Some dork somewhere is wanting all miscarriages to be investigated to see if 'foul play' is involved. Last time I looked abortion was legal. Don't like it, don't get one. We aren't chattel. We don't need permission from Daddy.

[immoderate]

14. Read my response below before you reply. But men vote.

I have a position, and I get a vote. You are better to enlighten men than to dismiss us.

You are missing a chance to educate a person who says he is confused. Confusion is a sign of partial learning. :)

--imm

[immoderate]

6. Life started with the first cell. It has been a continuous process.

You are hung up on an unanswerable chicken-egg type of question. Perhaps you should ask, "Is it a person?" You may even come up with an answer.

Can you accept that every case is different, and there is no rule you or anyone could come up with that is better than the judgment of the pregnant woman? Do you understand that "unborn" means "not a child?"

Do you think you are so knowing that you can make this decision for others who may not have your great wisdom? You admit you are confused. Others might not be. Why get into their business. If they need your advice, they'll knock on your door.

--imm

[BanzaiBonnie]

8. I say that if you're a man, you have no say in it

Because whenever a woman is pregnant, she is putting her life on the line. That and that alone is enough.

[immoderate]

23. I say that men get to vote, so they have a say.

I'm not judging that, but it's real. I would leave it out of the realm of public policy altogether. It's strictly a medical issue. But we have this system where people get to bring things up for a vote. Men need to be educated. (Some, I mean.)

--imm

[Justitia]

52. When do I get to vote on YOUR reproductive organs?

I am TIRED of men asserting some phantom right over women's bodies.

[Mojeoux]

72. To lurkers who try to use God in their debate.

God LOVES women as much as God Loves men.

God, Jesus, Allah, Holy Mary and the Mother Goddess are loving .....LOVING Gods, with philosophies and teachings of loving one another.

The God argument is Moot when it comes to the concept of aborting a fetus equaling murder. God did not create women to be incubators.

Every aborted life force or "soul" goes right back into the arms of the LOVING God.

Love is very logical, and emotionally we feel this instinctively. Even if someone doesn't believe in a God, the logical choice to be loving is innately human.

Now get this straight, if a woman has carried her baby almost to term, but will not survive a birth, she's not a monstrous baby killer. She is a woman who put her whole life into having this baby. This choice is devastating and a tragedy, but God knows this woman has a right to live. If she could chop off a leg or arm to save her baby, she do it in a second. The lurkers and sickos should LEAVE these sad ladies alone.

God loves women. God loves the small aborted life. God loves the men.

Now run go tell that!

[immoderate]

109. Get some sleep.

And I'm tired of voting on medical issues which should be left up to a woman and her doctor. :fistbump:

--imm

[chimpymustgo]

89. Why should anyone vote on MEDICAL issues???? Think.

[immoderate]

108. Do you think that's what I said?

You could be joking. Sometimes people don't get that timing right.

--imm

[Arugula Latte]

10. Why the fuck should you care? You'll never get pregnant.

It's so easy for you to sit on your high horse.

If you don't support a woman's right to choose you can go fuck yourself, literally and figuratively.

[musette_sf]

11. Anyone who wants to endow a single-cell fertilized egg

with "EQUALITY" to a living, breathing female US citizen

WANTS TO TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS.

To wit, my Constitutional rights to life, liberty, property and privacy.

Over 80% of these single-cell organisms never even get implanted in the uterine wall, much less go to full term. I am worth MUCH more than a single-cell fertilized egg, and anyone who wants to legislate otherwise WANTS TO TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS.

[AsahinaKimi]

27. +1000

agree.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. But they DO want to take women's rights away

This isn't about saving babies as much as it's about controlling women. That's been their agenda all along.

[Lars39]

13. Doesn't matter, the host (woman) must be willing and able to continue the pregnancy.

This is what the anti-choice control freaks really object to....that the woman must be willing...that this choice is hers alone.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. So since there is no clear consensus on when life begins, then LEAVE IT UP TO THE WOMAN WHOSE BODY

THE PREGNANCY IS TAKING PLACE IN, NOT YOU.

See? "Dilemma" solved.

[pacalo]

19. When abortion & family planning clinics are bombed & their workers & patients are

intimidated when walking into the building, those self-righteous thugs are dictating their righteousness onto others. Plus, these thugs get workers' & patients' names & addresses to further intimidate them.

When fetuses grow up as children, they're emotionally abandoned by these same self-righteous people when they're lacking food, shelter, or doctor's care. Then when they become disadvantaged adults, you're more than happy to let them fight the wars you love but won't enlist to fight.

Meh.

[Lucian]

22. The fetus is a virus.

It feeds off its host (its mother) until it's ready to be born. THEN it's a human, ready to live outside the body.

It really is this simple: If you don't want an abortion, don't fucking get one. Quit imposing your self-righteous, idiotic beliefs on everyone else.

[patrice]

25. "We" make so many exceptions to the value placed on human life that perhaps you can appreciate a cer

tain amount of skepticism about the authentic motives behind "Pro-Life".

Because "we" DO make so many exceptions, under so much social pressure to conform, many of us have decided that the authentic value of human life will be served best by women who are absolutely in charge of their own bodies, under all circumstances save a late-term pregnancy of a healthy fetus.

[Hugabear]

28. How very convenient, since it's something you'd never have to ever experience

Since you can't get pregnant, you really don't have a say in this argument, especially if you're going to spout anti-choice bullshit.

[Arkana]

29. It IS that simple and you're being disingenuous pretending it isn't.

The GOP is in full-scale attack mode on women's rights. As far as I'm concerned it's their bodies and they have the right to do whatever they want with them. You don't like abortion? Fine. Don't have one. But you don't get to impose your morality on the whole country.

[lunatica]

92. It seems you're not disagreeing at all. Follow the advice to use condoms

Because your confusion is yours. And if you don't want children at any given time in your life then don't have them.

[surrealAmerican]

96. Not only do you not have an answer, but ...

... you're not even asking the right question.

Of course a fetus is "human life", so is your appendix. If you had a medical need you would not consider having your appendix removed as murder.

The question you really need an answer to is, "When does a fertilized egg become a person?" The answer to that will be different based on your philosophy and, in many cases, religion. The law should be based on preserving the rights of those who are unquestionably people (in this case the pregnant women) to decide, based on their own beliefs, what is appropriate.

[newtothegame]

140. edit: dupe

[jeff47]

141. One other factor

If we menfolk got pregnant, the right to an abortion would be enshrined in the Constitution.

[spooky3]

153. the answer lies in your first paragraph

Since you are "not sure about whether the fetus represents human life..." then you should not be making the decision for another person.

[Ignis]

157. Science is pretty clear on this, and has been for decades.

Appeal to emotion--even when using the "think of the children" approach--is still a fallacy.

[Scout]

159. your "belief" about when "life begins" is not sufficient justification

to deny me my rights to privacy and to make my own medical decisions.

OF COURSE it's human ... women don't think they are pregnant with puppies for god's sake. it doesn't matter if it's human or not ... it is not a person, and it is still inside my body. it is legally impossible to give rights to a zygote/fetus in utero without violating the rights of the pregnant woman.

[readmoreoften]

205. Basically: I have no interest holding a "conversation" with you. (graphic warning)

Your detached "human rights" argument moves me not one iota. I have never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never (I could go on) see a single pro-life advocate "muse" with the same intensity on the rights of Iraqi women and children or poor women and children. It's just symptomatic of a people-hating culture obsessed with purity and what's more pure and untainted than this "unreal", "pure potentiality" of a fetus.

Women need access to an abortion. That's a fact.

So women are supposed to risk their lives so that you can feel comfortable about the "rights" of this:


Whatever.

[JoeyT]

206. They do have the same rights we do.

You have no right to live inside someone's body that doesn't want you there.
Moral problem solved!

Glad to help.

PS: When someone demands a woman allow something to live inside their body for nine months, their rights most certainly are being trampled.

[Maraya1969]

217. My believe is that all souls that are supposed to come to earth with

come to earth and there is nothing you can do to change it. Women have many more miscarriages then they think they have had because often times it just looks like a heavy period. That statement comes from the OBGYN.

So if nature is washing away all these zygots or embryos maybe they are not people. Maybe they are a totally different thing that I cannot even comprehend.

That being said, I believe if a fetus becomes viable to live outside of the womb without some horrifying defect that it will die quickly from anyway, than it should be birthed.

That is just my belief. It makes me feel OK about the whole thing and to me it makes sense.

[blueamy66]

225. I'm coming in late here, but....

I'm guessing that you're a guy...from your name....

Anyway, when you can get pregnant, get back to me, k?

[librechik]

302. so, respectfully, don't have an abortion. But don't stop others from exercising their rights.

over which you should have no control.

[burrowowl]

17. An anacephalic fetus cannot

trigger contractions, it will either stay in the mother and become gangrenous or ossify, either way the mother dies or suffers for a life-time.
Do you allow an abortion. (Many instances of anacehphalis (having no brain at all) babies occur around Brownsville Texas due to pollutin.)
There are other instances of the necessity of an abortion. Late-term abortion can be a necessity.

[proud2BlibKansan]

51. When Dr Tiller was murdered, a woman came to our vigil

and told a horrifying story. She was pregnant in the 1950s and her baby died in the womb. She couldn't find a doctor to perform an abortion and was forced to carry the baby until she went into labor. As a result, she nearly died and could never have any more children.

[Justitia]

55. This also happened to my aunt. She carried a dead baby for weeks.

In the early 70s.

An absolutely horrifying experience.

[burrowowl]

237. In 1972

The baby inside my friend in died in utero at 8 months, in France they immediately did a D&C (know here as partial birth) and she had 3 beautiful girls afterwards.
2 who are married and have 2 and 3 beautiful children each.
Even at that time in the US, there would have been serious consequences and delays.

[patrice]

31. INSTITUTIONALIZED economic & war slavery makes women's absolute control of their

own bodies the authentic Pro-Life position, not conformity to institutions, such as churches, who support war and economic injustice.

[Shandris]

33. By any reasonable, non-emotional assessment of the situation...

...the fetus, until the time of natural or induced birth, is a parasite that is living at the graciousness of the woman. This is why a woman who has extended her graciousness to the parasite (ie, a woman who wants to carry the child to term) will see additional justice done should someone negligently harm the parasite. Likewise, if the woman has not chosen to extend her invitation to the parasite, then it shall be removed by medical procedure at her desire.

If the language is too 'cold' for you, then you're too 'hot' to be involved. Step out and let rational minds prevail. And by rational thought, there is NO justification for telling a woman what she can, or can not, do with her body and whatever parasites may currently be living WITHIN that body.

[csziggy]

35. +100000000000000000000000000

[Union Scribe]

65. Disgusting.

That's the sort of shit that makes all of us look bad. And no, using crude and ugly language isn't "rational"--it's just crude and ugly.

[sinkingfeeling]

116. Take a biology course. There's no crude or ugly language in that post, just the

basic truth.

[ehrnst]

124. Why is correct medical terminology disgusting? Do you still say 'wee-wee'?

[WildEyedLiberal]

165. Because the poster is NOT using "correct medical terminology"

You will not find a single credible medical source that refers to gestating fetuses of any creature as a "parasite." Words have meanings, and "fetus" != "parasite."

You and the other poster are NOT helping, and this rhetoric is no more rational than the anti-choice people who scream that fetuses are equivalent to living babies.

[Arkana]

132. By definition, a fetus is a parasite.

Sorry if you can't handle that.

It relies on a host to stay alive and draws nutrients from the host's body. If the host dies, it dies.

[lumberjack_jeff]

189. Bullshit.

Parasite: (Biology) An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a DIFFERENT organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

The offspring of any creature are not "by definition" parasites of their mother.

The cavalier, on-the-fly redefinition of this reflects very poorly on us.

[pipi_k]

195. check it out, hon...

Straight from (in) a medical dictionary...


"Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently."


http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4769


By that definition, a fetus, until it can live on its own outside the womb, is a parasite.

[Maru Kitteh]

203. Furthermore, the fetus IS a "different organism" from the mother - so it's still a parasite.

[Ikonoklast]

148. Define "us".

You allow your personal biases to define the norm by which everyone here must measure up to?

Fuck that.

[Union Scribe]

255. Us = people who aren't perfectly despisable.

[pacalo]

67. Beautifully & graciously stated. Wow!

:thumbsup:

[amyrose2712]

98. +++

[Auntie Bush]

121. (((((((((((( [phone] ))))))))))))))))

Welcome to DU. Glad to have you aboard.

[ehrnst]

123. No one comes into this world but by the consent of a woman to carry to term.

That is the truth about the power of women that scares the living shit out of anti's. What they truly owe women, they want to attribute to a man, because they can't reconcile a male god with female power.

[lumberjack_jeff]

126. This is appalling.

I have always been pro choice. Rhetoric like this tempts me to reconsider that view.

People are not parasites; not the poor, not the disabled and not babies. As a pregnancy approaches viability, a fetus at some point becomes a person.

If a pregnancy could be terminated by inducing labor thus producing a viable baby, I think the social interest trumps privacy and Blackmun agrees.

I'm a man, and I know that the prevailing view is that I shouldn't have a say. That's not possible. I'm also a citizen, and in a democracy it's my job to form and express an opinion.

[sinkingfeeling]

145. Really, you want to change the definition of words?

Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently.

[lumberjack_jeff]

147. Don't wade too deep into this pool.

Is it "an organism" or "a collection of cells"? If the former, what species is it?

Since an organism is alive, you're two-thirds of the way to making the pro-life argument; the killing of human life.

Into this corner, you do not want to paint yourself.

A parasite is an invasive organism of one species which feeds on an organism of another species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite

We wonder why polling shows the collective DU viewpoint as marginal. This thread should be exhibit 1.

[sinkingfeeling]

154. An organism that cannot live if removed from its host. Therefore, abortion is not

'killing' anything, but nature taking its course.

[lumberjack_jeff]

162. A 3 month old baby can't survive without a host either.

Is (s)he a parasite too?

Stomping on an organism may very well be "nature taking it's course". It's also killing.

The pro life argument is that
a) a fetus is a living organism (you apparently agree)
b) that organism is human.
c) killing it is therefore murder.

Unless you can argue that the "parasitic organism" in question isn't a human, you aren't even on thin ice.

[uppityperson]

163. Yes it can. I needs help but not a host. It doesn't need to feed off another human

It can survive on formula.

[Shandris]

180. This is where your argument breaks down.

A fetus is an organism. It is living insofar as it maintains a constant flow of nutrient from its' host; that is the very definition of parasitic. You seem to have a problem with that word. Are you under the assumption that all parasites are harmful? They aren't. There are many benign and even beneficial parasites (witness the remora, for instance, although it is not an internal parasite).

When the fetus can survive on its' own, it will be human. Until that time, as I stated earlier, it is a parasite of the human strain. The host -- the woman -- is entitled to extend or not extend her body as a host to the parasite as she sees fit, WITHOUT CAUSE, JUSTIFICATION, OR NEED to explain her choice nor her reasoning to a person who fundamentally WILL NEVER BE FACED WITH THE CHOICE OF WHETHER OR NOT HIS BODY WILL HOST A SIMILAR PARASITE.

As an aside, I notice you made the plea to the 3-month old baby. Why is that? Because you're trying to stir up emotion to make your point. I covered that in my first post.

[lumberjack_jeff]

187. I have three problems with the word, a) because "a parasite" is a different species than the host.

B) because in the sense "parasite" is used by the poster, any person who places an inconvenient burden on another lives only at the suffrage of "the host". And c) a parasite is an organism. An organism is alive. If it's alive, and if it's human, and s(he) has a chance at a fulfilling quality of life, you don't kill it.

[Shandris]

241. No, this isn't right.

a) A kind poster (I'm sorry, I forget who it was) pointed out the inaccuracy in 'a' with the proper definition from a medical text.
b) This comparison is completely inaccurate. A person can place an inconvenient burden on me and still live without drawing upon my very bloodstream. Hence, it is not medically dependent.
c) This is a statement of opinion, and as such has no place in a factual conversation. If this is your belief, and your wife/SO/girlfriend/etc shares it, then you have nothing to concern yourself with. You do NOT have the right to enforce that belief upon a woman who does NOT share it, however.

[Marr]

265. A parasite isn't by definition another species.

In the definition you posted, "another organism" was an expression of "a separate organism". I think the poster is technically correct in the use of the word. It's a loaded word with a lot of baggage, and not the sort of thing I'd personally use to advance a political argument, but it is, I think, technically correct.

[BobbyBoring]

179. WOOOOOOOOOOOWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I think I love you!

Perhaps the wisest words I have heard on the subject:toast:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

194. That's far from unemotive.

Describing a foetus as a parasite is not an attempt at "cold" or "unemotive" language, it's an attempt to provoke an emotional response.

If you want to take the (daft, in my view) approach of viewing people as biological machines (very sensible if you're trying to cure diseases; very stupid if you're trying to pass laws), then you have to remember that the "purpose" of a human is to reproduce its genes; far from preventing that the foetus is making it possible.

But, like I said, that's a daft approach. You're doing precisely what you accuse others of doing, and trying to substitute emotion for rationality.

[Shandris]

238. No. I'm not.

I'm using the most appropriate medical term to be found that describes the condition in a way detached from loaded phrases and arguments over whether it's a fetus, a zygote, a fertilized egg, and so forth. For years pro-life people have debated this by phrasing the question in a way clearly and obviously designed to tug at the heartstrings, to make us each wonder 'What if I had been aborted', to play on our fears of death and forced obligation, all for one TRUE purpose: to punish women for choosing to have sex. EVERY argument on the topic devolves down to 'Well if she had just kept her legs closed, she wouldn't have to carry the baby'. As if the woman is an object to be available, used, or told what she can or can not do at the whim of the person enforcing their moral view. It is no accident, then, that these VERY SAME PEOPLE are all men, or women who subscribe to the viewpoint that all men should have dominion over a woman -- a belief that arises from the verse of the same wording from their Holy Book.

Daft is continuing to argue in this vein without exposing in clear, concise language that is easily understood exactly what is at stake. I am not arguing that people are biological machines -- clearly, I am arguing QUITE the opposite, and that the decision to carry or not to carry is made at the convenience of the human being who is actually involved and not at the discretion of those who feel they have the authority to command her around. I do not discuss the 'purpose' of humanity in my statement -- it has no relevance and is a red herring designed to lead to your argument that a fetus must be carried to term. Then you make the argument that I am trying to use emotional language when using the clearest language. Obviously, however, that isn't the case. Of course you're free to continue to think that it is 'daft', but that is because you are choosing to ascribe emotion to a topic where not only is emotion detrimental, but it obscures the true issue completely.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

247. "Parasite" is not an unloaded term.

It's an extremely loaded (and inaccurate) term that would not be used for any other reason than to induce emotion.

The claim that opponents of abortion rights are motivated by the desire to punish women for having sex is simply false - the vast majority of them are motivated by the belief that a foetus is a person and aborting one is morally wrong for that reason.

The claim that all opponents of abortion rights subscribe to the view that men should have dominion over a woman in general is also false (although there's a strong correlation between the two opinions, and opposing abortion rights involves an extension of the extent to which the state, many of whose representatives are men, has dominion over women). It's worth noting that, on average, men in the US are more pro-choice than women are.

If you want to convince more people to support abortion rights, you first have to understand why they don't. Repeating nonsensical and inaccurate stereotypes about their motives makes that impossible.

[Union Scribe]

256. It's the kind of term I've heard anti-choice people accuse pro-choice of using

and until now I've been able to say I've never really seen anyone say that. It disgusts me I cannot say that anymore.

[lumberjack_jeff]

226. This is a fundamentalist view.

That it's 180° from the views of the pro-lifers doesn't make it less fundamentalist.

[Shandris]

240. You're right.

I don't see this as being a negative, however. It is quite obviously a fundamental statement of truth that the one and only person who can make the decision to share her body, her nutrition, her health, her very life is the woman directly involved. I find it to be a very fundamental truth, and I will make no apologies for it.

[backscatter712]

232. Awesome!

:evilgrin::thumbsup:

[mrmpa]

36. For all pro lifers out there-Law is moral but individual morality cannot

and must not constitute the law. The law has produced an answer as to the rights of women to have an abortion. Your individual morality cannot and will not be imposed upon us.

[johnroshan]

37. You guys are an angry lot!

I said that I was confused and was in doubt about the legal protections that a fetus should have. Apart from a few who actually read my post and tried to give their opinion, the majority again go all DONT TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS!!!1! crap.

"By any reasonable, non-emotional assessment of the situation...

...the fetus, until the time of natural or induced birth, is a parasite that is living at the graciousness of the woman. This is why a woman who has extended her graciousness to the parasite (ie, a woman who wants to carry the child to term) will see additional justice done should someone negligently harm the parasite. Likewise, if the woman has not chosen to extend her invitation to the parasite, then it shall be removed by medical procedure at her desire."

Thats a much more rational look at the issue at hand. Thank you Shandris, Patrice and immoderate.

[Lars39]

41. Not sure how much you took to heart if you think women's right to choose is crap.

How about we get to decide how often and how many children you have? Or if you even have children. You might get a tad angry, too.

[johnroshan]

44. Again... Who said I thought women's right to choose is crap?

Please read. I said that most people here in DU are not against abortion because they want to take away your rights! They might genuinely have doubts as to the level and the kind of legal protection a fetus should have. People get so emotional around here that they fail to see even rational opposition to their viewpoints. You don't have to accept it, just don't group me as someone who doesn't care about women's rights.

[Lars39]

48. You did. Can't help it if you refuse to recognize a gut reaction as a legit response.

[tnlefty]

317. States already have laws restricting abortion. In

my state it is after 24 weeks and after that something is terribly wrong with the pregnancy, either the fetus has horrific abnormalities, or deemed incompatible with life, or the mother's life is threatened if the pregnancy continues.

IMHO the 24 week viability is crap as I delivered a boy at 23 weeks and 5 days and he didn't survive. My first was 33 weeks and 4 days and during the 'what to expect' counseling when labor could no longer be stopped and he was going to be born, it was explained to us that girls mature faster than boys and pre-term girls fare better. I hope that helps you understand a little better about viability determinations, and I don't agree with them.

Women get pissed as access to first trimester abortions becomes more difficult, and, additionally, when people try to use phony markers in an effort to determine a phony 'personhood' so that others can have a say as to whether we live or die just to get the fetus to birth. No one gets to make that decision except me, No one else gets a say in whether I risk my life or health, my husband loses a wife, or my sons lose a Mom.

Hope that was unemotional enough for you.

[Zoeisright]

46. When our right to control what happens to our own bodies is constantly

threatened by the jackasses on the right, damn straight we're angry.

Don't doubt that for a minute.

[johnroshan]

47. I believe the OP was targeting people in DU.

[pacalo]

71. Hardly. There are many trolls who keep an eye on DU, & not just because

it's a great, easy-on-the-eye, well-organized site than what they're stuck with when talking to their like-minded friends. They're here to see what the other side is saying.

The other side has been the most vocal on abortion, & Rachel's show tonight made me really think about how wrong they are & what we should be saying to them every time the other side harps the same, tired talking points. They've done a lot of damage to other people, including murder, stalking, & hateful intimidation, which doesn't say a lot for their brand of Christianity.

Watch tonight's segment on Rachel's MSNBC site.

[Hugabear]

49. Put down the shovel. Stop digging.

You're already in over your head. Even suggesting that abortions should be controlled based on "when does life begin" is a standard anti-choice talking point.

It's not your body, end of story. That's really all there is to say about it. If you're not the one pregnant, then you have absolutely no say whatsoever.

[johnroshan]

53. Interesting viewpoint indeed.

By that extension, If a drunk guy lies on my driveway, I have the right to run him over with my SUV.

Its my driveway, end of story?

[Justitia]

56. See, this is how we know you are full of it.

You are comparing women's bodies with your fucking driveway.

Shitstorm, indeed.

[johnroshan]

58. God...

People don't seem to get sarcasm these days. I did that to expose a flaw in his/her reasoning. Thank you for that ad hominem by the way.

To be more explicit,

I said that the question of when legal protections should be extended to fetuses is a major issue in the abortion debate. Hugabear said that all that matters is "its her body" and even if it was a human life(I'M NOT DECLARING IT IS SO) at stake.

I extended hugabear's logic to property and provided a hypothetical thought experiment, whereby the right to life of a (well established) human being is superseded by the right to choose, right to property of another human being.

John.


"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~~ Aristotle.

[Hugabear]

59. A woman's body is not "property"

Therefore your analogy is a bad one.

[johnroshan]

61. You're mistaken...

I know and I agree that a women's body is not "property". That however, doesn't completely invalidate my analogy( It does weaken it, albeit).

Women's right to choose, right to her body ------------------ Fetus right to life (IF IT EXISTS)

My right to property, my right to choose to drive in my driveway ------------------ Drunk dude's right to life(Established)


Its an analogy between right to choose and the right to life. That is why I keep saying that the question of a right to life for a fetus is a paramount one. I'm neutral on this one. I just want to say that this needs to be addressed before any meaningful settlement can be arrived at.

[barbtries]

204. actually it's been settled.

roe v wade. the right to abortion is the law of the land.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[johnroshan]

62. Thanks again for the ad hominem.

Can we please grow up and tackle the issue rather than degenerating into petty attacks on perceived personalities and age? Thanks.

I know this is a sensitive issue. I'm trying to be as polite as I can be as I give my opinion. You are welcome to ignore me and go your way.

[Justitia]

66. Willfully obtuse.

and painfully self-unaware.

So, who did you vote for in your first national election?

[johnroshan]

68. Again... Why do you have to know who I am to talk about the issue raised?

If you must know, I voted Dems.

[REP]

70. Don't worry. I know who you are. Your name is Legion.

[johnroshan]

73. LOL... I would have a bitch of a time trying to register with that name. nt

[Justitia]

75. Laws regarding abortion will never, ever apply to you - that's why.

I didn't ask you the affiliation of your first national vote, I asked WHO you voted for.

[uppityperson]

127. "Psst : sorry for starting up the shitstorm." your first post.

Don't see anything except acknowledgment of that post.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[phylny]

85. Let's try this.

Drunk guy isn't attached to your body, is he? If not, as you know, your analogy is ridiculous.

How about this? You are told that you have to give the guy a piece of your liver. Have to. You have no say. In fact, *I* get to decide whether or not you have to be hospitalized and have surgery to give drunk driveway guy a piece of your liver, or better yet, one of your kidneys. You have no say. I really don't care if you have no insurance and don't have the money to pay for it, or if your life will be threatened, or if you have other children at home who will be affected, or if you just at this time find that you are unable to undergo surgery.

How'd you like that?

[johnroshan]

94. You've misunderstood the point.

The drunk guy is in MY driveway, where I have the right to drive anytime. It wasn't my fault that he chose to lie there when I wanted to take my car out, maybe for an emergency!

To answer your question, he doesn't have the right to my liver or kidney, the same way he has NO right whatsoever to sleep on my driveway. See my point?

My right to drive on my property is sometimes overridden by another person's right to life.

Similarly, the right to life of a fetus(IF IT IS LEGALLY ESTABLISHED) would override the right of choice of a woman (or at least provide a way for a resolution, like removal and sustaining of the fetus if it is medically possible)

All I wanted to say is this,

"The question of whether (and at what stage of development) legal protections ought to be provided to fetuses is THE MOST important issue that needs to be solved before any meaningful resolution can be sought."

For example, the stage when viability outside of the womb is medically possible is considered by some as the point where legal protections can be extended. Of course, the question that remains in that case is whether the state could be made responsible to remove the fetus and ensure its survival?

The OP was oversimplifying the issue by spouting the propaganda line of the left in response to propaganda lines of the right. I just think we have to move past silly rhetorical statements and talk about the underlying issue if we ever hope to reach a resolution.

[shraby]

112. A point no one has brought up. A woman DOES have the

right to choose whether or not she wants to carry a child to birth. There are restrictions as to the space of time in which she has the option to abort the collection of cells in her body. A few weeks is the time slot..except in cases of the fetus dying in the womb or gross birth defects which would cause it or the mother to die if carried to term.
The main question in my mind is does the woman have a right to a doctor in these cases. If it were a cancer, no one would deny her a doctor and hospital if needed. Then why for a different medical procedure is she denied the right to a doctor and or hospital? A medical procedure is a medical procedure. As long as what she and her doctor plan to do is legal, she should be allowed to go to a hospital/clinic without any interference from someone who is not involved. End of story.
Anyone who would interfere in someone else getting medical care should be put in jail and pay a penaly for interfering.

[phylny]

215. I didn't misunderstand.

Running the guy over in your driveway doesn't affect your body. I've given you an example of a scenario where your body would be used to save someone else's life. So, I'm the one who gets to decide what you get to do your body,not you. Are you willing to let me have control over your body to save the life of someone else?

[johnroshan]

235. It is an analogy.

The state can legislate to curtail my right to drive in my driveway to save someone else's life.

The state can legislate to remove my money to save the life and increase the comfort of someone else.

The state can legislate that I can't restrict someone from entering into MY shop on the basis of race, sex, or orientation, because it might affect the self esteem of those parties involved.

BUT, the state can't legislate to put restrictions on abortions, because it affects the right to choose, even though you CHOSE to bring the baby into the world in the first place?


How can you be so libertarian in one issue but so social in others?

[Scout]

161. no. if the drunk guy was in your uterus, then you could kill him.

you driveway is not inside your uterus, so does not count.

[lumberjack_jeff]

117. "When does life begin?" is the essence of Roe v Wade.

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches <410 U.S. 113, 163> term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."

Therein lies madness, certainly. Sadly, you can't avoid going there. As the fetus approaches viability, the public interest in protecting that human life grows, and at some point it trumps a right to privacy.

[Missy Vixen]

201. Just remember, it's not appropriate for women to be angry. Ever.

After all, it's unladylike!

>DONT TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS!!!1! crap.<

Thanks for letting every woman on this thread know exactly how you feel about reproductive freedom, and the right any woman has to choose whether or not she has control over her own body.

[johnroshan]

236. Did you even read the whole argument??

Why do people just go right ahead and take things out of context?

All I said was, the right to life of the fetus (IF IT IS LEGALLY ESTABLISHED) would anytime override your right to choose. That is why it is important to settle that core issue.

[uppityperson]

246. How could any woman be angry at giving a fetus the right to override my rights?

[johnroshan]

248. Please, oh please read.

I said IF the fetus is given the right to life at a particular stage of development, like a normal human being, then the woman's right would be overridden.

All I'm saying is, don't evade that core question of when to provide legal protection to fetuses, for in that answer lies the resolution to the problem.

[uppityperson]

249. Please, oh please read.

"IF the fetus is given the right to life at a particular stage of development, like a normal human being, then the woman's right would be overridden."

How could any woman be angry at giving a fetus the right to override my rights?

"All I'm saying is, don't evade that core question of when to provide legal protection to fetuses, for in that answer lies the resolution to the problem."

No, that isn't "all you are saying". You also chide us for getting angry about this. Roe v Wade already provides legal protection to fetuses. You are trying to change this. Or else you are one of the ignorant that do not know what Roe v Wade does and thinks a woman can get an abortion "on a whim" until the day she delivers.

""The question of whether (and at what stage of development) legal protections ought to be provided to fetuses is THE MOST important issue that needs to be solved before any meaningful resolution can be sought.""

Roe v Wade already does that. Why do you want to change what law is already in place except to take away my rights and give more to a fetus?

[johnroshan]

259. Thank you for a measured response..

I must admit, I was misinformed and ignorant about the whole content of The Roe decision. However, angry shouts like "We'll talk about it when you grow a uterus!" is pointless and gets us nowhere. When I believe in the personhood of a fetus who is at a fairly developed stage, obviously, I would support overriding your right to choose, unless of course you would choose a libertarian approach towards rights. please read further before blasting me.


The court decision that abortion be allowed up until the point of viability was a good and sensible one for that period. The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. Viability is not a concrete timeline. With future advances in medical technology, it could be shorter.

Fully Libertarian approach - Legalize abortion at any point and screw the unborn child. (unborn child gets the short end of the stick)

Partly Libertarian approach - Legalize abortion at any point and the state becomes responsible for ensuring adequate facilities for the survival of the child. (Both unborn child's and woman's rights are fulfilled - Highly expensive for the state)

Social approach - Legalize abortion up to the point of viability, and criminalize it after that. The point of viability keeps shifting earlier and you'll only see further erosion of your rights.

Either the definition of viability should be a fixed time, like the trimester framework which got rejected in favor of a more flexible approach, or choose one of the libertarian ones.

[uppityperson]

277. Thank you for your reply and no, it wasn't obvious what you believe in. Thank you for clearly statin

stating it.

Couple points. Do not use "unborn child" as by using that you are showing you hold the rights of the pregnant woman as much less, that the fetus and the pregnant woman hold the same status.

A big part of being pro-choice is NOT saying "abortions at any point and screw the fetus" but keeping the choice of a legal, hygienic medical abortion a choice rather than turning to filthy back alley abortions. Women with enough money and means can always get an abortion that will probably not kill them. Women without die.

" Legalize abortion up to the point of viability, and criminalize it after that. The point of viability keeps shifting earlier and you'll only see further erosion of your rights." Is what Roe v Wade give us, and what anti-choice people are trying to take further away.

At what point does this become true for you " I would support overriding your right to choose,"

[uppityperson]

250. Roe v Wade already does give protections. Why do you want to change that?

There are already legal protections. Why do you want to change it? "don't evade that core question of when to provide legal protection to fetuses, for in that answer lies the resolution to the problem." It is already there. All I can see you doing is wanting to expand that protection and take away more from women.

[Missy Vixen]

268. I don't have to read "the whole argument"

I've been reading "the whole argument" from men and those who would seek to limit or deny my right to control over my reproductive organs since 1969, and so has every other woman of childbearing age.

It is comical to me that men are so desperate to couch their anti-choice rhetoric in "concern". After all, women can't possibly be trusted with a concept of such importance. They need to be told that since they opened their legs, they're going to live with the consequences. If they didn't want to get pregnant, they shouldn't have sex, and they really shouldn't enjoy it anyway. Sexual pleasure is a man's privilege. If she has 18-21 years to reflect on her error, even better!

>All I said was, the right to life of the fetus (IF IT IS LEGALLY ESTABLISHED) would anytime override your right to choose.<

Oh, that's it! You've solved the whole problem.

The forced birthers, while full of concern and compassion for that poor little clump of cells, have NO concern over the end product. After all, a quarter of a million kids in the foster system - well, they should have made a better choice! Maybe the forced birthers should spend some time trying to find homes for those kids. Oh, no. They're much more concerned with that clump of cells, and the thought that any woman might make any decision they don't control.

:eyes:
:sarcasm:

[IGoToDU]

38. Word!!!!

[pacalo]

74. Hi, IGoToDU! Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Blue-Jay]

40. That was a brave stance to take on DU.

I'm pretty sure that most of us are pro-choice, so you'll get lots of recs.

Nice use of big fonts, though.

[pacalo]

76. You didn't miss the word "lurkers", did you?

And you didn't happen to catch Rachel's show tonight? I had just watched it before I posted & it made me angry.

Is the point of posting to get "lots of rec's" in your view? I post very, very few OP's; when I do, it's about something that moves me to do so. I'm thankful for the rec's, though; it was intended to be seen by the trolls (the word I should have used on the subject line instead of "lurkers") who scan DU regularly.

[Scottybeamer70]

43. As a man......

I'm surprised that women ( along with some men ) are not protesting in the streets.
Since when do men have the authority to tell a woman what she can or cannot do? Wow
talk about arrogance and ignorance! I would never in a million years profess to know
what a woman goes through during a pregnancy. If it is her decision to stop the process,
then it is her decision.........certainly not a man's.

[proud2BlibKansan]

50. My DH, who is very nonpolitical, came in the room while I was watching

and he stopped and started screaming at the TV. He really hates Phill Kline. In fact, all of us Kansans with brains hate Phill.

[pacalo]

79. Wasn't it infuriating!

I'm glad someone else watched it, too. Our side has to get a grasp on this & stamp our message with common sense.

There's a reason for privacy laws & doctor/patient confidentiality: it's personal between a doctor & the patient. Period.

:hi:

[rasputin1952]

86. Kline really overstepped his authority...

he's going to be dis-barred...and there should be a class action suit by those whose records were used in this. Sure him for tens of millions...making sure that he never goes a day without having to pay out of his pocket...it's the only thing he will understand.

[proud2BlibKansan]

87. I'm not counting on dis-barrment

I won't believe it till I see it.

This is Kansas. He still has way too many fans here.

[rasputin1952]

95. True...

but they lost in the misdemeanor cases.

It's up to the bar in KS, this is not a trial, it's a hearing as to whether he should lose his license to practice law. Most lawyers take a very dim view of others going beyond the limits of their authority. I'm also willing to bet that many of those sitting on the hearing bench have had tangles with Kline before. It's about professional ethics not criminal intent. His defense appears to be incapable of holding much water.

Whether he is disbarred or not, it still leaves open a Civil class action suit by those that were harmed by his zealotry.

He was defeated in his run for AG, (that's what I heard anyway), and that will have an impact on how he is viewed by the bar association.

[CommonSensePLZ]

54. Gross oversimplification of a complex issue

Said as a man neutral on the issue, but who leans in favor of a woman's right to abortion and strongly against fundamental black and white right wing opposition to it.

[pacalo]

80. Granted, it's simplified for such a topic.

But the fact is, what should be said to non-scientific, non-medical laymen who are attacking women's rights should go no further than mentioning "privacy laws & doctor/patient confidentiality". Simple & sufficient.

[johnroshan]

84. I have another qusestion.

What about prematurely born babies. I assume once the baby is born, it has full rights as a normal human being. Suppose there were two women who got pregnant at around the same time, one gave birth prematurely, and her baby has full rights. The other one still carries the baby and decides to get an abortion. How is that two babies around the same lifetime can have two very different rights?

Does the state have the responsibility to remove and maintain the fetuses if the abortions are conducted during the phase where it is medically possible to allow separate growth without the mother's involvement? What if in future it is possible to grow an embryo to full adulthood without the requirement of a womb?

[LAGC]

88. That's alot of "what ifs"...

You do realize how incredibly rare late-term abortion is don't you? Its almost always only done when the life of the mother is at serious risk, or the fetus is already dead.

I've still yet to see a "pro-life" person care much about the fetus after it is forcibly born. Seems all the concern is about the potential life, but not the very real life of someone who is actually born.

If they are that concerned about life, why force an unwanted child into the world? Don't we have enough neglect and abused kids as it is now? Why force that kind of life on anyone?

[rasputin1952]

90. As the father of a preemie son...

born 4lbs 6 oz., I can tell you that he was fully alive and loved. He made it in a now, strapping 22 year old. He was conceived after my ex-wife had a miscarriage. She was told that if ever impregnated again, her life would most likely be in serious danger. We did everything we could to ensure that she would not get pregnant again.

However, if she had, termination of the pregnancy would most likely have been necessary to save her life. The earlier the better.

One more thing, 3rd trimester abortions are exceptionally rare. Long before the fetus would be viable outside of the womb, those that choose abortion have the procedure done.

I am not of the mind that "life" begins at conception, just my 2 cents, but if the fetus could be viable outside of the womb is a good place to start thinking "life". Certainly in the first and second trimesters, the fetus is not viable out of the womb...in fact, most of this could be avoided completely if people took biology classes and were afforded prevention long before conception. The "morning after" pill is an excellent option as well, as at worst, there is a zygote, (small clump of cells), that is rejected from the uterus, or conception simply does not take place.

Finally, as a male currently in Nebraska, I have no "right" to tell others what to do with their bodies...in Kansas or anywhere else. Quite simply, it's none of my business.

[pacalo]

289. Your definition of when life begins is reasonable to me!

I'm so glad there was a happy & successful transition of your son's birth to what he is today.

[rasputin1952]

309. Thanks...he just turned 22 on the 17th of Feb...

he's here w/me in NE, but we have plans to move back East shortly...depending on tax returns. Initially, I was going back on my own, but he thought about it and decided he didn't like NE either...too many RW'ers out here...:D

[pacalo]

316. So he's a Democrat with good instincts -- wonderful!

Tell him :yourock: for me!


:hi:

[shraby]

113. If the two babies are far enough along in the pregnancies

to be able to survive outside the women's bodies, they are too developed and the woman cannot get an abortion. There is a time limit involved in the decision, unless an unexpected extreme complication develops.
Did you know that a few years back, in the case of a premature baby, the doctors caring for it decided to do a brain scan to see how developed the brain actually was. There were NO convolutions on the brain whatsoever. The brain was virtually smooth yet. That's one reason the real early premies while being able to survive often have severe disabilities that destroy any hope for any kind of a normal life...and these are children who were wanted with no medical expenses spared to ensure it's life.
We are not yet at the point where we really really can replace the mother's body for nourishing a developing child.

[The Straight Story]

91. I USED to think that, and used to support freedom of choice, but learned it was a bad thing

Makes one a libertartian when they extrapolate that logic out to other things.

If a woman does not want to be pregnant, she has a choice - if someone does not want to be in a bar that allows smoking, go to one that does not allow it.

But the real answer is this:

If a woman does not want to be pregnant, don't have sex. If you don't want to be in a smoky bar ban all smoking in bars and force others to live prudently and righteously like you.

Now now, I can hear people yelling now "enough about smoking" but I will say, for the millionth time, whether it is smoking, abortion, seat belts, fast food, alcohol, etc - I support a person's right to choose. If you don't then why do you on one issue and not another, and how can you complain about people being evil and controlling when they want to take away one right to choose but not another.

Choice - sometimes people will make ones you don't like, and you will make some they don't like. Remember that as you rush to control the choices of others, someday you may ask them to defend your right to choose.

[LAGC]

93. Would you PLEASE quit trying to bring smoking into every unrelated topic...

Haven't you heard the saying: "Your rights end at the tip of my nose?"

That's how I feel about smokers. Why should other people be forced to put up with your filthy habit, especially in enclosed spaces?

While I agree that government prohibitions against smoking in bars and the like is a bit extreme, you're ignoring the fact that many bars ban smoking VOLUNTARILY, because many non-smokers will boycott said establishments if they don't.

I simply don't see how your "right" to smoke anywhere you please has anything to do with abortion.

It's not like a woman's choice affects anyone else unlike second-hand cigarette smoke.

Analogy FAIL.

[LeftishBrit]

97. But the law *does* have a right to restrict choices that directly affect others

Do you think that people have a right to choose to drive a hundred miles an hour in the wrong direction on a one-way street?

Do you think that if I choose to take something of yours that I fancy, I can just go to your house and take it?

To give a better analogy perhaps: do you think people should have a right to drop litter wherever they please, or to urinate in the street?

In fact, I think some smoking bans go too far; e.g. those that ban smoking in OUTDOOR public places; but the reason for smoking bans in enclosed places is to protect non-smokers from second-hand smoke, not to deter smoking for its own sake. So whether you agree with smoking bans or not, they're not the same as abortion.

'how can you complain about people being evil and controlling when they want to take away one right to choose but not another.'

The logical conclusion of that is that if people want the right to choose whether to have jam or butter on their toast, they must permit the right to choose whether to beat up strangers in the street.

[Bunny]

100. Comparing a woman's right to autonomy over her body with your

childish desire to smoke in a bar is extremely offensive and you need to stop. Really. Just stop.

[Starry Messenger]

101. Oh, I'm sure he knows.

That's why it is so "fun". I'll start taking him seriously when women can have abortions in bars, preferably over cocktails. Makes about the same amount of sense.

[Bunny]

105. It's so goddamn ridiculous, isn't it?

[jeff47]

102. You have no idea what you're talking about

There's an awful lot of things that can go wrong in a pregnancy.

There are 3 'fixes' for them:
1) Abortion
2) Mother dies/permanently injured.
3) Baby dies a horrible death at birth.

Those fighting against abortions are fighting for options 2 and 3.

[TicketyBoo]

104. This is a done deal in Nebraska.

If you don't want to be in a smoky bar ban all smoking in bars

No smoking in public places. I didn't have anything to do with the ban, of course, but the state legislature did it. Good deal as far as I'm concerned.

I can't see myself ever having an abortion because I love kids, but I can't put myself in the shoes of every woman who decides she needs one. I'm not in favor of trying to tell another woman what to do with her body. That doesn't affect my health. Somebody smoking around me does affect my health, and I'm glad I no longer have to put up with it.

[pipi_k]

111. There's a problem

with claiming that freedom of choice is a bad thing, then limiting a woman's choice to "if you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex" and then saying:



"Remember that as you rush to control the choices of others, someday you may ask them to defend your right to choose."


Is it not controlling to tell someone they basically have ONLY two choices?

1. Don't have sex or

2. Have sex and accept the consequences (and end up inflicting those consequences on an innocent child)


People deserve to have access to all possible choices, not just the choices you or I think are acceptable.

[sinkingfeeling]

114. Do you really believe that all sexual encounters are consensual? Have you ever been a 14 yr old

girl with a 'good' body? It would seem you place 100% of the responsibility on the woman while you have no words of wisdom for males.

[Codeine]

137. The Addiction is strong in this one.

[Arkana]

138. The fuck?

"If a woman does not want to be pregnant, don't have sex."

But it's OK for men to go out and fuck everything with a vagina, right?

And libertarianism isn't an entirely bankrupt philosophy. The government should NOT be in the business of telling what we can and can't do with our bodies or who we can and can't marry or fall in love with. Politically, it's awful, but in terms of civil liberties there is none better.

[sudopod]

193. Are you for real?

God damn it.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[pipi_k]

106. I'm uncomfortable about the term "against abortion"...

because its opposite term would be "for abortion".


Which I'm sure none of us would say we are.


I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not FOR abortion. I AM for a woman's right to choose.


That, I think, is what it's all about.


It's just the other side of the same coin the "Pro Life" crowd uses. Like they are pro life and we are anti life. Same thing.




Pro-choice or Anti-choice

not Pro-abortion or Anti-abortion

[pacalo]

299. I'm with you on that & "pro-choice" is the term I usually use.

But for the sake of the question asked at the beginning if the OP, I used the word "abortion" for impact. I had just watched Rachel's show about Dr. Tiller's murder. All those workers at his clinic (& others) have been intimidated & harrassed; their phone numbers & home addresses are looked up for the use of stalking them. At the end of the show, I was angry enough to post, & I rarely post my own OP's. :)

[Brickbat]

110. I disagree with the "don't get one!" argument, because I wouldn't say "against murder? then don't

murder someone!" For someone who views abortion as murder, it makes no sense.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

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

[johnroshan]

234. Exactly.

Thats the point I'm trying to make. Some people view abortion as murder. They want to extend legal protections to the unborn child. That is why settling that issue is paramount if you want to end the abortion debate.

Many in DU are so blindly consumed by anger at the perceived infringement of their rights that they refuse to cede even a wee bit of legitimacy to the other side's rational claims.

[uppityperson]

244. Yes, I am angry at your taking away my rights & the rights of other women AND at your condescension

You want to give something this big, in parenthesis () the right to kill me. And you say I am "so blindly consumed with anger". You want to take away MY rights for a potential, and then chide me for being angry and refusing " to cede even a wee bit of legitimacy to the other side's rational claims"?

Some people view women dying because they are unable to get a clean hygienic medical abortion and instead a filthy back alley one as murder. You don't. We understand that.

[Mojeoux]

251. Abortion is not murder.

It's not a person. It's a life/soul that goes back to the arms of God.
God Loves women as much as men, and as much as the aborted souls.
God puts the decision with the mother, just butt out.

Go save a homeless baby or foster child!

[Brickbat]

260. I realize that. Some people think it is, though, and so the argument "don't have one" is lost on

them.

[pacalo]

300. Do you agree that privacy laws & patient/doctor confidentiality gives a patient

& her doctor the freedom to perform a procedure that is in her best interest, that the existence of these laws strongly indicate that her medical care is no one's business but hers & her doctor's?

You made a good point about "don't have one", but if you keep in mind that I was addressing busy-bodies who impose their self-righteous, ticket-to-heaven beliefs on what should be a private matter, I allowed myself (after watching the Dr. Tiller segment on Rachel's show) to express my anger on their level.

[ehrnst]

119. I might add - work WITH Planned Parenthood to PREVENT abortions!!! (nt)

[uppityperson]

128. I am FOR women having the CHOICE of a legal,hygienic medical abortion vs back alley one, even if

[nomb]

130. Abortion based upon SEX of fetus.

Abortion based upon sex is common in some parts of the world, and with immigration occurs here.

Is it right to regulate this? I gotta say yes.



Just read this article (okay, 'skimmmed' actually) today and then this thread so it was definitely on my mind:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/02/21/20110221arizona-abortion-bill-advances0222abrk.html

The race bit seems a red herring, I can't say I've ever heard of that actually happening anywhere.

[pipi_k]

134. So if a couple have four girls already..

and are trying for a boy, it's OK for them to keep adding to the family size (not to mention the population) in their quest for that coveted boy?

And what if the couple wants one sex and gets the other, and ends up subconsciously (or actively) punishing the kid for being the opposite sex?

Most parents don't care what sex the baby is as long as it's healthy. But some do care, and those are the ones who should have the choice to abort rather than inflict their disappointment on an innocent child.

[lumberjack_jeff]

136. I find this too offensive for words.

But some do care, and those are the ones who should have the choice to abort rather than inflict their disappointment on an innocent child.

Stick to the medical argument. This argument is full of fail.

[pipi_k]

149. Sorry you find it offensive

But people are going to have their reasons.

If someone wants a certain sex, it's not a medical issue. It's a CHOICE issue.

Just like it's a choice issue to have the child in the first place.

If someone doesn't want a child at all, it's not a medical issue. It's choice.

If someone wants a boy and not a girl, it's not a medical issue. It's choice.


I would rather see someone abort an early pregnancy over the sex of a child than to have that innocent child pay the rest of its life for being the wrong sex and a supreme disappointment to its parents. And please don't tell me that this never happens. It does.

[lumberjack_jeff]

158. Don't be coy.

By "a certain sex" you mean "a girl".

I know enough about DU to know that no one here supports aborting unwanted daughters. Sons? Well, now that's a CHOICE issue.

Simple exercise; What would you think about a poster who told you that the reason he has all sons is because he and his wife decided to abort all the disappointing girls?

If sexism has a slippery slope, this is the mudhole at the bottom.

[uppityperson]

160. what if they have a sex-linked health issue? Hemophilia, Albright's, SCID, DMD?

What if there is a history in the family of a sex-linked serious health issue? Would you support the choice to an abortion depending on sex?

[lumberjack_jeff]

164. Yes.

But not if it's only a head-fake. (e.g. "I hear that boys are more likely to have ASD")

http://www.news.com.au/national/desperate-couple-abort-twin-boys-in-desperate-bid-for-ivf-girl/story-e6frfkvr-1225983907853#ixzz1AVf5HWKl

My turn. As medical science advances, would you support a woman's choice to abort a gay fetus?

[uppityperson]

166. why? nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

168. Because reasons matter. n/t

[pipi_k]

185. So as long as someone else does something

for a reason you find acceptable, that's OK?

Otherwise, they don't have a right to reasons of their own?


Just want to be clear about what your point is...

[lumberjack_jeff]

186. Aborting gender A because you prefer gender B is the far end point on a sexist spectrum.

Express your consumer preferences via shoes, not children.

[pipi_k]

191. Call it "sexist" if you like...

But if a couple feel like they prefer one sex over another, then that's their business. It's not sexist, IMO, it's just a preference. It's not saying that one sex is inferior to the other. It's a preference.

I prefer female dogs to male dogs. I don't think male dogs are inferior in any way. I just prefer females to males. That doesn't make me sexist.


And if parents would rather not deal with the issues that can arise from raising either boys or girls, then that's their business...not yours.

They're not "consumers" buying a pair of shoes that will last five years, they're parents who will have to deal with issues long after your opinion ceases to matter to them, if it ever did.

You may not like the reality of the situation, but there are people out there who just do NOT want to deal with issues associated with a particular gender.

It's their business...not yours.

[lumberjack_jeff]

223. Dogs? Seriously? That's the best comparison you can come up with?

Jeebus.

[pipi_k]

264. they may be "just dogs"

to you, but they're like children to me.

And really...denigrating my choice of comparison is a pretty feeble way to address the entire issue, which is that it's none of your business, or mine, why someone wants to exercise her right to choose an abortion.


You have, in one sentence, failed to address the issue, opting instead to attack my honest attempt to explain my position.

[lumberjack_jeff]

270. They may be "like" children to you, but they aren't children.

And besides, choosing a puppy isn't the right analogy. Would you drown all the male puppies in the litter to satisfy your preference?

I do not support the argument that; 'yeah, abortion is killing a human being, but it's okay because it's my human being living at my suffrage'. I find it abhorrent.

Want to win allies? You know you're going about it the wrong way when you have fundamentally offended an atheist on the basis of the sacredness of human life. There's a hardwired thing in normal people which is repulsed by the idea of killing other people, particularly for such frivolous, puerile and superficial reasons as incorrect gender.

In general, I have always supported choice on the basis that if a woman is going to take the medical risks associated with childbirth, she's the one who must choose. I guess I never really contemplated the full range of reasons that one might choose an abortion. Gender selection merits an exception to my support.

[pipi_k]

271. who said anything about drowning puppies?

Puppies that have already been born, BTW.


Which is not even the same as choosing to end the development of an embryo/fetus that can't survive on its own outside the womb.


And really...you're getting way off track here with the basic premise, which is that a woman's right to choose abortion should also give her the right to choose the reason WHY she's choosing it.

Because, in the end, it's still none of your business.

[lumberjack_jeff]

274. As voters, it's all of our business. n/t

[pipi_k]

285. Hmmm....OK...

I vote.

I don't like alcohol. Alcohol kills. It killed my younger brother recently. It's killed other people in my past. I don't think anyone should have the right to drink.

I don't smoke. You shouldn't either.

In fact, anything I don't approve of shouldn't be done by anyone because I vote and I have the right to tell others how they should conduct their personal lives.

Oh yeah...that sure feels good.

I never realized that being a voter would give me so much power over the lives of others.

thanks for the revelation

[lumberjack_jeff]

287. We all have our causes.

My cause is; a baby boy has greater worth than a tapeworm. YMMV.

[pipi_k]

306. That's fine. For you.

Whatever you think about the issue is a personal choice.

And it's no more valid than the choice of someone you may not agree with.

You may not like or respect someone else's choice, but it's still none of your business, voter or not.

[uppityperson]

308. "a baby boy has greater worth than a tapeworm". WTF? Strawman or redherring.

I can never remember which is which. Or are we playing "what has greater worth" game?

My dog has greater worth than the pimple on my nose.

[lumberjack_jeff]

312. According to this thread, fetuses are parasites, and aborting them based on gender is okee dokee. nt

[uppityperson]

313. Some call them parasites, many of us don't. How would you legislate not aborting due to gender?

Note aside, did you get snow yet? Dumped on us a bit ago.

[lumberjack_jeff]

314. I don't think you can.

But openly admitting it is a different kettle of fish. I hope that doctors would refuse if that was the only reason.

Quite a bit of snow so far, but it's wierd. 3" of accumulation which melts in an hour followed by another 3". I doubt I'll be leaving the house tomorrow. :hi:

How much snow do you have?

[uppityperson]

315. Doctors don't require a reason, but do educate as to what will happen, talk about it with the pt

Ultimately, the decision is up to her, provided she is within the time frame.

5 inches in a couple hours. Waiting for the winds to come next yesterday had snail (snow/hail) and today a bit of snow then wham! BIG flakes and lots of them. Very pretty out and glad I get to stay home also.

[Mojeoux]

318. In China, where they do forced abotions for women with more than

one baby. As soon as tech breakthroughs made it possible to pre-determine the sex of the fetus, people aborted the girls.
Then they kept trying for boys.
Now they have a deficit of marriageable girls for all those boys.

Just leave conception to women, and give thanks for the boy or girl sent to you from heaven.

[uppityperson]

214. So it is ok to have an abortion if the baby would be born imperfect in a medical sense, but not

because the parents have a preference? Would they need to have a doctor ok the abortion first? After all, some people do take care of their children who are born with severe defects and might consider aborting them murder.

[lumberjack_jeff]

224. Different people can disagree about what constitutes a medically prudent abortion.

I would hope there's no doctor in the US which would agree to perform an abortion simply because the woman doesn't like boys.

[uppityperson]

228. You didn't answer what you thought beyond "no doc who'd abort due to woman didn't like boys"

Is it ok to have an abortion if the baby would be born imperfect in a medical sense, but not because the parents have a preference? Would they need to have a doctor ok the abortion first?

You said you hope there's no doctor who'd agree, but you didn't answer my questions.

[lumberjack_jeff]

267. It depends on the "imperfection"

If I knew my child was going to be born anencephalic, for instance, I'd support abortion.

But different people can disagree on which disabilities justify the decision for their own child. That's their choice.

But I don't support anyone's decision to abort because it's the wrong gender. There's my pro-choice boundary.

[nomb]

167. And what if it's cultural and girls simply have no value? For disease is not same as deleting girls

[uppityperson]

171. What if it's social and they don't want another boy?

[nomb]

175. What if its not blonde? Or if its too dark? Or expected to trend fat? Breed only the best?

[uppityperson]

181. Can they check for those traits by 12 weeks?

[pipi_k]

184. If that's what potential PARENTS want...

then that's the choice they should have.

Not up to the State. Not up to some dictator who wants to breed a "master race".


It's a private decision between the parents.

None of your business.

[uppityperson]

182. You seem to be on the side of no abortions even if for sex-linked serious health conditions.

Thank you for sharing that.

[pipi_k]

183. You may "know enough about DU" but...

you don't know me.

I don't have a preference one way or another.

Some people, however, DO.

There are, believe it or not, people who would actually prefer girls. Some would prefer boys.

That's up to them.

If a couple cares that much about the sex of their child, then it's their business and not for you or me to say what they should or should not do.

[jeff47]

143. That's a self-correcting problem.

Reducing the numbers of one gender in the next generation increases the value of that gender. It's a problem that will fix itself.

[newtothegame]

142. It'd be nice if we guys could get pregnant...

If a girlfriend gets pregnant and we'd like to NOT move forward with being a Dad, the girlfriend moves forward with the birth and we're now paying child support for a child we didn't want.

If a girlfriend gets pregnant and we'd LIKE to move forward with being a Dad, the girlfriend aborts the pregnancy and the potential child we did want is now gone.

Not saying there needs to be any legal change, just sad that we can't do it on our own and make the choice about our child ourselves.

[pipi_k]

150. Here's where knowing something about the person you sleep with

comes in.


How common is it for people to just hop into the sack with each other without knowing how the other feels about that particular issue...

Half the time people don't even bother to get each other's middle names, let alone attitudes on pregnancy and children.

People can save themselves a lot of aggravation by acting responsibly before it ever gets that far.

[blueamy66]

262. Perfect answer.

nt

[Starry Messenger]

200. Keep working on those uterine replicators guys.

Once you've got that all wrapped up you can just eliminate women altogether. I know it's sad you were born to this species with icky gurls in it, but I'm sure you'll have it all worked out someday.

[Liberal_in_LA]

146. k&r

[femrap]

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

if you're against abortion....GO ADOPT 3 OR 4 OF THE UNWANTED CHILDREN IN THE US OF A.

We have 10,000 of them here in Ohio.

[Missy Vixen]

209. THANK YOU

I should also mention that I have never met anyone proclaiming themselves "pro-life" who adopted an existing child.

NOBODY.

I have met "snowflake" twins, however. My tongue was bloody by the time I left the social gathering they made an appearance at.

There are a quarter of a million kids languishing in the US foster system as we speak.

[Glassunion]

170. "For all the lurking men & women, if you're against abortion"

"don't get one"

I'm a man... I will not get one, I promise. I think it would hurt something fierce.

[pacalo]

292. Hahaaa!

I pointedly put "men" before "women" to highlight that, because they would never need one themselves, women's rights to have abortion procedures are none of their business, nor should any man or woman decide for a husband whether his wife or fetus should live. It's a private matter.

:hi:

[Glassunion]

307. Personally I stay way the fuck out of the issue.

I can only speak for me and my wife. We agree on our views and that is the end of it as far as it goes for me.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

177. Are you on the right web site?

I think most here would agree with you. No need to yell.

It's a good rant for free republic or something.

:hi:

[pipi_k]

192. "Most" being the qualifying word here...

because it looks like some, at least, are all for freedom of choice unless it goes against what they personally think is appropriate.

Then "choice" goes right out the window.

I mean, it's OK to have an opinion, but some individuals want to take it further and impose their own limits on others.

:shrug:

[rhett o rick]

178. First of all we are all pro-life, at least I hope. Stop giving that name to the haters.

Second, I think all of us would like to see fewer abortions. Better education, better health care and less poverty would greatly reduce the number of abortions. But the haters wont go there. They only see using brute force.

But using the heavy hand of big brother to reduce abortions doesnt work. The numbers of abortions increased under Emperor Bush.

[Maru Kitteh]

188. I wish I could rec this about a thousand times or so. K&R.

Oh, how I do despise crotch-sniffing moralists.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

196. "If you're against stealing, don't steal" does not work as a line of reasoning.

This post is a textbook example of how *not* to make the case for abortion rights. It's a line of argument that will only convince people who want to be convinced by it. I can demolish it in one line: "If you're against stealing, don't steal".

The basis of society is that we *do* have not merely the right but the duty to pass laws to stop other people doing wicked things, even if those things don't impact us directly.

Now, I don't believe that abortion is wicked, and hence I do believe that it should be legal, and *I* can make a convincing case for why that is the case (I won't bother to here; if anyone cares enough to ask me to I will).

But the OP does not do so, or even attempt to do so. It starts by taking as axiomatic that abortion is not immoral; it doesn't even attempt to justify that belief; and hence it has no chance whatsoever of convincing anyone who doesn't already believe that to do so; all it will do is make them believe that since supporters of abortion rights are not putting forward a valid argument to justify their views, they must be unable to do so, and hence it will confirm their prejudices.

[riderinthestorm]

199. I have to K and R this! DUers are so smart there's nothing left to add. nt

[Rage for Order]

202. Fine. Don't ask me to subsidize your abortions to the tune of $1 million + per day

Buy a condom instead of using abortions as birth control

[Missy Vixen]

210. Yeah, that's it. Every woman with an unintended or health-threatening pregnancy uses abortions as

"birth control".

>Buy a condom instead of using abortions as birth control<

I'll be sure and share that wisdom with the next woman I meet who has to have an ectopic pregnancy removed, for instance.

[Rage for Order]

213. Do you know the statistics of abortion?

For example, what percentage of abortions are elective (i.e. birth control) versus what percentage of abortions are performed because the mother's health is in danger or because of abnormal fetal development?

And who said anything about "every woman"? Oh yeah, that was you.

:eyes:

[uppityperson]

216. Do you believe any abortions should be "elective" vs "life/health of mother"?

[Rage for Order]

221. I'm not sure I understand your question? n/t

[uppityperson]

222. My question stems from what you wrote, wondering what you think about it, ok or not.

You wrote " what percentage of abortions are elective (i.e. birth control) versus what percentage of abortions are performed because the mother's health is in danger or because of abnormal fetal development?"

Do you believe any abortion that is "elective (i.e. birth control)" should be legal? Do you believe that an abortion "because the mother's health is in danger or because of abnormal fetal development" should be legal?

[Rage for Order]

283. Yes to both

As it relates to the former, I recognize that making abortions illegal won't stop abortions from being performed; prohibition generally does not work. As it relates to the latter, in matters of life and death (or serious disability) difficult choices sometimes have to be made, so yes, abortions should be legal in those instances as well.

[Missy Vixen]

269. And you'd care about this why?

It's frankly none of your business why any woman undergoes a legal medical procedure. Birth control has never been 100%, even when used correctly. To allege that those who have an elective abortion are careless with birth control is comical.

It's unfortunate that those so concerned with a clump of cells are less than interested in the outcome, as evinced by the high number of men who still skip out on child support payments, aren't interested in parenting, etcetera.

[pipi_k]

273. Applause!!!!

Couldn't have said it better myself!

[Rage for Order]

284. Because I care about people in general

If my taxes go to pay for abortion than you are wrong, it most certainly is my business. And you are correct, birth control is not 100% effective. However, don't you think people should at least try using birth control first?

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.

So nearly half of all women who have an abortion don't even bother with birth control. What's one rung below "careless" on the ladder of indifference?

Men who skip out on their duties of child support and parenting are dirtbags. That is why courts garnish their wages, seize their tax refunds, and throw them in jail if they don't pay child support.

[pipi_k]

286. And if a woman doesn't use birth control...

she should be punished by being forced to bear a child she doesn't want?

[Rage for Order]

291. No, but she should be shunned

There should be a social stigma attached to using abortion as birth control

[Lars39]

293. Sounds like you want to make medical records public.

[Rage for Order]

294. Where did I say that?

Things tend to decrease when they become socially unacceptable. Using abortion as birth control should carry at least as much of a stigma as smoking cigarettes

[Lars39]

303. How else would it become a matter of the public knowing?

Abortion *is* birth control.

[pipi_k]

305. Wheee!!! It's a shun-fest!

Let's all shun people who do things we don't approve of!


What can happen except the world will be a much better place!


:eyes:

[Mariana]

310. I think only women get shunned in his little fantasy world.

Two people create the situation in his scenario, but he didn't say THEY should be shunned, did he? Heaven forbid. He said SHE should be shunned.

[uppityperson]

298. No, just have a big letter branded on their forehead. Or maybe make public notification

a mandate? Like parental notification?

[uppityperson]

297. How would you know if someone had an abortion or for what reason? How could you know whom to shun?

Unless you want medical records available to look through, how could you know?

[pipi_k]

304. Like others I'm going to ask the obvious question...

How would anyone know WHY someone had an abortion as a form of "birth control"?

[uppityperson]

212. Shit, what type abortion, what extras would I get for $1million?

Never heard of an abortion costing that much. Maybe I'd get free drinks, chips and dip too?

[Chorophyll]

208. Shoot! Unrecc'ed by mistake! Meant to rec!

Therefore kicking.
:kick:

[BrklynLiberal]

219. KICK AND RECOMMEND!

[backscatter712]

230. Wow. I didn't know DU had its own group of fetus-fetishists.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised though. Amazing the views someone can hold and still call himself a Democrat...

[BoWanZi]

280. That is thing that bothers me, do people have to follow the party line totally

to be allowed to call themselves a Democrat? Seriously? So if someone is personally morally against abortions, they are therefore forbidden from supporting unions, GLBT rights, free for everyone healthcare, higher fair taxes for the rich, etc?

Good grief.

[musette_sf]

311. If you're "morally against abortions"

you do not consider a US female citizen to be fully equal to a male citizen. It's as simple as that. Don't want one - don't have one.

The idea is that those who are "morally against abortion" want to impose such morality by force on all females.

Those who are pro-choice do NOT want to impose abortions by force on all females.

Really, very simple.

[BoWanZi]

319. Your statement is an absolute, one's beliefs don't have to follow absolutes

I believe in letting a woman have a choice but that doesn't interfere with my personal belief that abortions are maybe morally wrong in some situations.

See how easy that is? I can be pro-choice yet still be morally against abortions. maybe my reasons for being pro-choice are like you said or maybe they are for other reasons but still, I still support a woman's right to choose no matter how I morally feel about abortions.

LOL, btw you might want to re-word your last sentence, "Those who are pro-choice do NOT want to impose abortions by force on all females" equals "Those who are pro-choice do NOT want to *force* abortions by force on all females". I hope that doesn't mean that pro-lifers want to force abortions on all females! (I know it was an honest mistake, I just had to LOL about it.)

[musette_sf]

320. You're welcome to believe "abortions are morally wrong".

Personally, and logically, it seems to me that a legally permissible action that is not morally wrong "in some situations" is not morally wrong in ALL situations, providing that the events that drive the action are legal, and that the persons involved in the performance of the action are all consenting and are legally able to consent.

I think it is illogical to maintain an attitude of moral superiority in stating that a legally permissible action, qualified by the parameters described above, is okay with you in some situations and "icky" in other situations.

And I challenge your reading and comprehension skills as to my last sentence. Your "LOL" parsings make no sense. I made no mistake.

"Those who are pro-choice" = Pro-choice people

"do NOT want to impose" = do not want to make laws that require

"abortions by force" = forced abortions

"on all females" = on all females.

This statement is the converse of the legislation of morality that is desired by forced-birthers, that they want to impose forced pregnancy and involuntary servitude on all females.

[backscatter712]

231. But George Carlin explains the abortion issue better than anyone!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kCyqBKewr4

Why is it that when it's us, it's an "abortion", but when it's a chicken, it's an omelet?

[snappyturtle]

239. Too late to rec but I can still

:kick:

[MellowDem]

242. Talk about self-rightous rants....

For one, many progressives are against abortion. That doesn't make them anti-choice or mean they want to make it illegal.

Nor does it make them hypocrites. Many progressives against the death penalty are also against abortion. Indeed, many would find you hypocritical.

Pretending that the question of when life begins is not part of the discussion or ignoring it alltogether is just being blind to some of the reasoning behind opposition to abortion.

I think abortion is not a good thing, but understand the reality of it and think it should be legal in certain cases.

Pretending that the question of when life begins is not part of the question as well as privacy rights or the health of the mother makes no sense.

I am very uncomfortable with the fetus being killed, especially at later stages, as a matter of birth control. It is a degradation of human life to me.

That is why I can't stand a lot of conservatives who are pro-lifers but then back laws that will insure many more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions.

[uppityperson]

243. 2 things. Life and fetal viability

1. "when life begins". Life began millions of years ago. Or do you mean "when does a fetus gain a soul"? Or "when does a fetus attain the same rights as a born human"? Define your terms since "life" began long long before any of us were a spark in our great great great great great great great grandad's eye.

2. "I am very uncomfortable with the fetus being killed, especially at later stages, as a matter of birth control." Doctors perform abortions on women "at later stages" for their health. By being uncomfortable with this, you are putting the life of the potential before the life of the existing.

Unless this is not when you mean. In which case, please clarify. Thank you.

[MellowDem]

252. I mean...

1. When a human fetus gains the right to life under our laws as a born human.

I think defining the fetus as a "parasite" is not only scientifically false, but a pretty disgusting attempt to dehumanize something that is human, and also a reflection of how it is a rather uncomfortable gray area when demonizing is needed to make it a non-issue. It is tactics like this from the pro-choice side I don't think are helpful in any way.

Better to just say that abortion rates don't significantly go down, if at all, when made illegal, but deaths do go up. Also, point out that more abortion occurs due to a lack of sexual education or access to birth control.

2. When it comes to a woman's life or death, even at a late stage, I think abortion should be legal. The life of the mother weighed against the life of the fetus would take precedence to me just based on the fact that the woman is already here and alive, and if the goal is the preservation of life, better to preserve the life that is more likely to continue (a grown woman) than not, when the choice presents itself. Not to mention, as a matter of policy, the mother will likely get an abortion anyways in such a matter, just that it will be black market and possibly very dangerous, which only backs up the idea that it should be legalized in the interest of the preservation of life.

Partial birth abortions, which I realize are very rare, are the ones that really make me uncomfortable. I understand some of the restrictions that have been placed on it. Personally, if the baby is viable by that point and needs to be extracted for the health of the mother, I don't see a need to kill the baby once the baby has been taken out in the manner that is medically best. Might as well let the state take the baby rather than just kill it.

Really, if a baby is viable and the mother wants to abort it for a reason besides serious health complications or possible death, I think that the state should at least be able to offer to birth the baby and take it as a choice for the mother. The mother doesn't have a child that she doesn't want and the baby can live. If the mother is adamant to abort the baby, then go through with it, since she will likely do it herself otherwise with worse consequences perhaps.

I don't think anyone likes the abortion procedure as a form of birth control itself, but see the necessity and social benefit of it overall. Basically, no one wants to make such a "choice" if it can be avoided, and it is the situtations of having an unwanted pregnancy, a state no one wants to be in, that everyone seems to oppose in general.

Of course, defining when a human gains the right to life under our laws cannot be "proven" in any scientific way. It is a moral question that leads to dilemmas.

I know many pro-choice people would rather ignore the question alltogether, but I think this has shown to be a bad strategy when looking at how people feel about abortion over time. While Americans continue to grow more progressive on many other social issues, abortion is stagnant, since even many on the left have reservations about sanctity of life, and I mean even completely secular reservations. The question, as a matter of law, is part of the debate because it has to be. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and it is an uncomfortable question no matter how it is spun. But it should be addressed.

[uppityperson]

275. answers

1. I don't call a fetus a "parasite" or an "unborn baby" since yes, both are emotionally laden terms meant to manipulate emotions. I do understand the frustration with "unborn baby" or "unborn child" and the resulting response of "parasite", but don't use either.

"abortion rates don't significantly go down, if at all, when made illegal, but deaths do go up." Exactly.

2. After viability, I agree choices should diminish but the health/welfare of the mother outweighs that of the fetus.

Again, exactly. "Really, if a baby is viable and the mother wants to abort it for a reason besides serious health complications or possible death, I think that the state should at least be able to offer to birth the baby and take it as a choice for the mother. The mother doesn't have a child that she doesn't want and the baby can live. If the mother is adamant to abort the baby, then go through with it, since she will likely do it herself otherwise with worse consequences perhaps."

Some decisions to have an abortion are fast and easy for a number of reasons. Some are more difficult, some heart breaking. However, I do not see any way to legislate that only the heartbreaking ones be done or are "right" . Not saying you do, just adding this.

Defining terms is a start. I ask "pro-life" people to define "life". What do they mean, what is "life" in that term, etc. Usually it is the rights of the potential outweigh the rights of the already present. But it is a start. And trying to discuss rather than throw jingoistic slogans is the first thing in getting people to think about what they are saying, what they mean and why.

[ellenrr]

258. right on!

We need to get louder and less civil on this issue.

[Dappleganger]

278. I subscribe to the NUNYA position...

what happens between me and my doctor is NUNYA business!