When a Pregnancy is Unwanted...

[Gov101]

Three related questions:
(A) When an unwanted pregnancy occurs, what limitations and/or options do you think should exist for a woman?
(B) Does society have a responsibility toward the woman and/or fetus in this situation?
(C) Do the circumstances of the undesired pregnancy matter to you when it comes to the morality of abortion?

Although reproductive politics may seem like a stale topic for many of us, this topic comes from a government class that happens to be overwhelmingly girls (17-18 yrs old) and of all the possible questions we brainstormed to post (on both a liberal and conservative board) this one by far had the most interest.

[Skittles]

1. it's the woman's decision

END OF STORY

[bettyellen]

4. YES INDEED

[newfie11]

11. Only the woman can make this decision

Everyone else butt out.

[Sheldon Cooper]

26. Of course it's okay for the woman to do just that.

What's the alternative? Servitude?

[smokey nj]

33. She didn't tell you how to feel.

You want to consult your partner - fine, more power to you. But, you don't any right to tell another woman how she should handle the situation. If you are not in the relationship, it doesn't concern you. How another woman deals with the situation is none of my, or your, business. You don't have to like how she handles it, but you don't get a say.

[Sheldon Cooper]

34. You'll no doubt be astonished to learn that I am in fact a woman.

And NO woman should be required to inform any man that she is pregnant, having an abortion, etc. It's her body and hers alone and she gets to decide who to tell and what input she'll accept.

If you wouldn't dream of doing anything without consulting your man, that's fine by me. But you, and the government (which was the focus of this OP), can't force others to live by those rules - that creates servitude. And we're not going back to the bad old days when women were doomed by their reproductive system.

[pnwmom]

36. No, that's not the end of the story. The OP also asks whether society

has an obligation to the woman and the fetus, if a woman goes ahead with a pregnancy. I would presume your answer, as mine, would be "yes." The woman and the fetus should be guaranteed nutritional and health care and the mother should be guaranteed adequate financial and other support after the birth -- for example, through Medicaid and social welfare programs.

[Ohio Joe]

50. Correct

It really is just that simple.

[steve2470]

72. agreed 100%

*dodges ass-kicking*

[shraby]

2. Four words...HER CHOICE....NOT MINE.

[bettyellen]

3. easy

a) as few as possible/ as many as possible
b) a compassionate society should
c) not my business, or the governments

[Lugnut]

5. It's the woman's choice.

(A) No restrictions whatsoever.
(B) It's none of "society's" business what the woman does.
(C) It's none of my business.

[RebelOne]

55. I agree. I am 100% pro choice. n/t

[Summer Hathaway]

6. Interesting questions.

(A) Every option should be available, and the only limitations placed on those options should be the woman's own, based on her personal views of those options.

(B) Society has a responsibility to ensure that ALL options are available for a woman to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, including a safe, affordable abortion. Society owes this to itself as well as the woman in question, for the obvious reasons.

(C) There is only one relevant factor in an undesired pregnancy - the fact that it is undesired. I see no immorality in abortion; therefore, its 'morality' is not a matter of degrees that depend on circumstance. Being forced to carry a child one does not want, however, IS immoral.

[Hekate]

7. What "government class" would that be? Taught by "the government" or about how government works?

I'm a little wary at this point.

[djean111]

9. Me too.

[Skittles]

12. no sh**

would be nice if he'd just report who he is reporting to

[Gov101]

38. Perhaps I'm not paranoid enough to know what you're asking...

It's a high school government class in a public school in Marion, Iowa. They are learning about parties and ideologies and we spend some time at the end of class discussing some the responses from each side. It's not that complicated. We're moving on though so I probably won't be posting any more. Until next fall I guess.

[Hekate]

45. I hope you check back for the answers you've provoked. It's not "paranoia": we get trolls

As for my initial response to you, on the same day as your post we had a newbie drop by to pick a fight in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3685853

All he/she did was spew right-wing talking points about killing babies and the evil women who do so, plus the "filthy cockroach-infested" clinics and so on. It was enough off the wall that he got tombstoned, which takes some doing.

The one line I chose to respond to was this: I find it odd that you have been born yourself. Embedded as it was in the whole of the ideological boilerplate, and given that I have been pro-choice for over 40 years and have given some thought to this, I answered as follows:

post #10. Your so-called information is a downright lie in every respect.
My favorite RW spew (from the poster) is this one: "I find it odd that you have been born yourself." So that is what you think of women? All women -- our mothers, your mother? That none of us would bear children at all unless forced to? You think your own mother would have aborted you if not forced to carry you to term.
That bespeaks a level of fear of womankind and hatred toward women that is just staggering.

Sorry if grandma sounded a little cranky at you, but I got into that just before seeing your post. DU has very lively discussions -- some of them bare-knuckled lively -- but we also attract trolls who come by to prove a point, like this one I responded to. The right-wing seems to distrust public schools as well as the government, and I was a little hyper-alert.

DU is very diverse and includes many teachers and other public sector workers. Next time you drop by, just identify yourself as a public school teacher and you will find many friends here eager to interact and answer any well-intentioned questions.

If you respond to this post, I'll answer your initial survey in a thoughtful manner, because then I'll know you're still around to read it.

Hekate

[petronius]

8. Answers:

A) Her choice should not be restricted - whatever option she chooses should be available without interference.

B) Health care in general is a societal obligation, one that we're not doing so well at. Pregnancy-related services are part of that, including termination if she chooses.

C) No. A person's right to control her own body and make her own choices doesn't vary depending on other people's opinions about her circumstances.

[SheilaT]

10. If your're not the one who is pregnant,

how can you begin to say what should be done?

And if you're in a category of people who can never be pregnant, you have absolutely no standing at all here.

[blueamy66]

17. love your response

nt

[Mushroom]

13. I'm not getting it.

What is it that you want?

[smokey nj]

14. How complete strangers deal with unwanted pregnancies is none of my concern. Frankly,

people who believe it is their concern are pretty fucking creepy. Mind your own damned business.

[deutsey]

15. If this is for a class assignment

I would recommend that you briefly and clearly state all that upfront: what's the class, what's the purpose of the assignment, etc.

Just my two cents.

[blueamy66]

16. A, B and C

none of your business

[LiberalLoner]

18. I read your profile and journal, and I wanted to say I am sorry

For our defensiveness. We get a lot of trolls around here, right wingers who want to disrupt our conversations, and so we tend to be suspicious of any with a low post count, especially if there is any indication that person might not be a true blue liberal. I believe you are who you say you are.

Everyone has given excellent answers here. The only thing I would like to add is that I personally think it comes down to how one views women.

Are women brood cows, an asset to be used by society for reproduction, relegated to slave status, with no choices of when to bear children, no choices of how to spend our lives outside of raising children and running a household?

Or are women people with the same rights as men, to determine if and when to bear children, to pursue whatever lives they wish to pursue? Even if those choices lead to a rising or declining birth rate?

What I see happening in right wing world is a great deal of race based fear. A fear the white race is rapidly diminishing compared to other races, because women have reproductive choices now, and some feel it is mostly white women choosing to have fewer babies. There is a consensus among right wingers that if we take birth control and abortion away from white women, we will no longer lose the demographic race. Inherent in this world view is the idea that white people are superior to brown people, and women are nothing but objects to be owned by men and serve men.

We liberals do not have that race based fear. We believe no race is superior to any other race, so the shrinking percentage of white people is not threatening to us.

We also feel there are lots of people on earth right now and we see no reason women can't be allowed to make their own reproductive choices.

That is the way I see it, anyway. I could be wrong. I often am. I do my best. I have some cognitive impairment due to MS, please forgive any mistakes I made in this post.

[Nevernose]

19. I can think of some big limitations for A

Abortions should be performed or overseen (in the case of chemical abortions) by medical professionals, in clean, healthy facilities. Ideally there would be places within a few hours drive in all parts of the country. Insurance should cover it.

A woman is a person, and therefore society has a responsibility to her. A fetus is not a person and is still part of a woman's body, therefore it is none of society's business what a pregnant woman does with her own body.

The circumstances don't matter because, again, a fetus is not a person. Besides which, taking circumstances into consideration is intellectually dishonest.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. If the state can prevent a woman from determining what to do (or not to do) with her pregnancy

what could it NOT do? Isn't that essentially making a woman a slave- to serve as basically an unwilling incubator? Sometimes, women get pregnant when they are unable and/or unwilling to give birth to a child with all of the attendant responsibilities and it sure doesn't help that the same people trying to ban/prevent lawful access to abortions are the SAME folks whom are ensuring that childbearing age girls and women are as ignorant as possible of the means to prevent pregnancy. I just don't know what the compelling government interest in people's sexual/reproductive lives is beyond ensuring that the people involved are consenting adults. People whom seem so worked up over what other people do in their bedrooms and/or with their pregnancies obviously must have no "life" and maybe somebody needs to tell them to go get one.

[LiberalLoner]

22. +1 and because social pressures exist to push women away from

Adopting out babies they give birth to (and for many women, their own emotions make this choice difficult once they have given birth), it is more than serving a nine month term as an unwilling incubator, with all the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth. It is also potentially sentencing women to decades of shouldering the huge amount of work and expense involved in raising children. And since right wingers hate assistance to poor families, this huge burden would fall squarely on the shoulders of the women deemed to be walking incubators by society.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

24. Right

Another thing that occurs to me is, while it is a woman's choice to pursue adoption (if she wants to), I wonder sometimes if the people pushing women for having their children adopted have secondary motives/interests as well (i.e. getting business for adoption agencies)? At any rate, the choice should always be up to the woman IMHO. Nothing wrong with providing women with access to information about all of their options (though I don't like mandated "waiting periods" and "counseling) if she requests it but at the end of the day, regardless of how much (or how little) information she has, she still should have the right to do what she feels is best for her situation. Working in the field of child abuse and neglect myself, I would rather see children brought in to the world loved and wanted and with parents whom are ready and willing to be parents rather than be unwanted and abused/neglected.

[LiberalLoner]

41. +1!

[me b zola]

48. Once the child is born she has rights too

It is none of anybody's business what a woman choses to do with her pregnancy, but a child has (is supposed to have) rights too. Children have the right to know their name, their family culture & history, and most definitely a right to have a birth certificate that is not amended by the state.

[LiberalLoner]

51. I agree with this, certainly! I was the product of an affair outside the marriage and

It has been a bit painful to me, finding out the lies and then still not knowing much about my bio fathers branch of the family.

[LWolf]

21. .

(A) None

(B) Yes. 1. To provide safe access to whatever choice she makes; 2. To butt out.

(C) No.

[MineralMan]

23. The individual woman decides. That's it.

Nobody else's business.

[JoePhilly]

27. First, you gather the men folk all together ...

... I'm guessing that's how lots of the answers on right wing web sites will start.

[ejpoeta]

29. As a woman myself... one who has had unintended pregnancies.....

I believe the only limitation as to any pregnancy is the independent viability of the fetus/baby. Once the fetus can survive outside the womb, s/he should be given the chance. But until that happens, the woman should make that choice for herself. I have never had an abortion, but I will not tell any other woman what to do. My situation is different than theirs.

Society has a responsibility to it's citizens. that includes women. And giving her the choice to decide whether she wants to carry a pregnancy to term, and the help she would need should she decide to do so. We seem more interested in IF the woman has the kid, but not giving her the options if she WANTS to have it. We want to force a woman to give birth but not take care of her or the kid afterwards. Then we get, well you should have thought about that BEFORE you decided to have a kid. Kids should not be a punishment. Imagine the life for that kid when they are not wanted.

It should not matter to anyone why someone has an abortion. The whole point of this country is that we don't all have to believe the same thing. A person can believe that life begins at conception and the only person that should effect is the person who believes that. Don't believe in abortion?!? don't have one. period. end of discussion. We should not be legislating religious or personal beliefs.

[stevenleser]

31. I agree with that. Woman's choice and only woman's choice until viability. (Edited to answer quests)

Edit to put that in terms of the original questions...

(A) When an unwanted pregnancy occurs, what limitations and/or options do you think should exist for a woman?
None until viability. It's the woman's choice and all medical options should be available until the fetus is viable outside the womb. Once the fetus becomes viable outside the womb, which I believe is around 5-6 months, I think there aren't too many options for anyone other than bringing the child to term.

(B) Does society have a responsibility toward the woman and/or fetus in this situation?
Society has a responsibility to care for poor women in this situation, to provide them either termination services, or good prenatal care if they desire to bring the fetus to term.

(C) Do the circumstances of the undesired pregnancy matter to you when it comes to the morality of abortion?
No. But I will say that Republican efforts to deny choices to women who were raped is particularly heinous to me.

[enlightenment]

39. I think you should consider carefully the

question of viability.

The definition of viability should be the ability to sustain life without assistance. Unfortunately, the law disagrees and includes "albeit with artificial aid" provisos (Roe v Wade). Frankly, that's a legal loophole the size of a tank that I find really problematic.

I take a pretty hard line on this, because the boundary keeps shifting as medical science "improves" (that in quotes because I am unconvinced that it is always an improvement to maintain function at the potential cost of quality of life). My simple test is this: if you take away the medical bells and whistles, would a pre-term infant survive?

The reason I think this is important to consider is because of comments like yours - viability tied to the right to terminate. When I was of breeding age, it was highly unlikely that even a 30 week fetus would have survived outside the womb, because we didn't have the tools to create outside the womb an environment that would provide that artificial aid. Today we do and the gestational age keeps shrinking as new techniques are invented. Every day you read about 23 and 24 week fetuses being "saved" by intensive and expensive neo-natal care. How much longer before they "save" a 22 or even 20 week fetus?

Those medical advances shouldn't change the argument of when a fetus becomes independent of the woman carrying it, because it is a back road to undermining a woman's right to choose.

[stevenleser]

43. I disagree completely. This is a debate I have had a few times with people.

Particularly when I bring up the topic of the hypothetical, as yet not-created (but from what I understand is under attempted development) artificial placenta.

Consider that if you could take a fetus as young as one month out of a woman's body and place it into this artificial placenta and it could be successfully brought to term, should a woman still have a right to abort the fetus instead?

There are competing rights here that become more clear when you consider an artificial placenta. As long as the fetus is completely dependent on a woman to live, giving her no choice but carry or terminate, the woman's rights to carry or terminate completely trumps those of the fetus or the father. That doesn't mean the fetus or father have no rights, it just means hers are overwhelmingly superior in that situation.

If you could take the fetus out of the woman's body at one month and put it into this hypothetical artificial placenta and it could be brought to term, that changes the dynamic of those rights. Similarly, once a fetus is viable, that also changes the dynamic of those rights, albeit differently.

The question I encourage you to ask is, exactly what rights are we talking about? To my way of thinking, in what we are talking about, the rights in question are:

Woman:
1. Control over her body
2. Right to decide whether to reproduce or not to reproduce

Fetus
1. Right to exist and continue to live

Father:
1. Right to decide whether to reproduce or not to reproduce.

I am concerned about a woman having control over her body and her rights whether or not to reproduce. As long as a fetus is nothing more than a parasite, the woman's rights, particularly control over her body, are clearly supreme. If the fetus is viable, it now has rights similar in importance to her rights in question. If you could take the fetus out of the woman's body as early as one month, not only would it then have important rights equal to hers but the fathers right to reproduce or not to reproduce also starts to approach hers in importance.

At viability, even with machinery the rights of the fetus to exist and the rights of the father start coming into play IMHO.

[enlightenment]

46. You're right. We disagree.

Hypothetically, you can take a tumor out of a person and continue to feed it in a lab environment. That doesn't make it anything more than a tumor and it has no "rights".

A fetus that is not capable of sustaining itself is a parasite in the same way that a tumor is a parasite - why should it have "rights" that a tumor doesn't have? It's a collection of cells. So to answer your question:

Women:
1. Have complete and total control over their bodies
2. The right to decide to reproduce
3. The right to end a reproductive choice, at will, to the point that the fetus is capable of self-sustaining life without artificial aid outside the woman's body. Until that point, the fetus is a hypothetical "person".

Fetus:
1. Right to live once it establishes ability to self-sustain life. Until that point, it has no more "right" to exist than any other growth that human bodies create.

Men:
1. Right to decide to reproduce - but only with full consent of the woman who has to actually do the work and subject to the rights of the woman.

The issue isn't what medical science is capable of doing. The issue is the intersection of what medical science is capable of doing and the right of a woman to choose to stop the process of reproduction. If the answer were as simple as "we can remove the fetus and grow it in a lab" we wouldn't be having this debate - but that's a pure hypothetical. The truth of the matter is that people will - and are - using the increasingly younger gestational survival rates of pre-term fetuses as evidence of "viability" when there is no actual viability . . . just more advanced medical intervention that manages to keep alive something that nature would not.

Bully for medical science - but that has nothing to do with a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy at any point up to the known limits of self-sustaining viability.

[stevenleser]

47. Yes, we disagree. I don't think the appeals courts will agree with your interpretations.

I don't think your interpretations are a reasonable interpretation of the rights of the three entities involved.

Since what the courts try to do in the cases of conflicting rights is to reach a reasonable standard where each are respected as much as is reasonably possible, I don't think you can expect the question of viability go your way.

[enlightenment]

58. Good thing I never said they would.

[LostOne4Ever]

57. I agree to a point

I have always seen abortion as a conflict or rights. The limited right to a fetus to live versus a full right to autonomy/self ownership.

In my mind autonomy and self ownership precede all other rights, and the right to a fetus (who may or may not make it to term without medical intervention) is limited. So I STRONGLY support abortion rights up till the point that the fetus is viable. At which point I see a way that the woman can keep her right to autonomy while the fetus can also live.

BUT, I also see such a provision being used to allow for procedures that might hurt and even cripple the woman. So I usually add in the proviso that the procedure must not risk the woman's health.

I would also like to note that if there were medical techniques that could do this to a fetus as young as one month old they would no doubt be very very very expensive. I can't help but imagine that most republicans would stop being pro-life the moment that happens because there is nothing they care about more than lowering spending and taxes.

[stevenleser]

60. It would be very interesting to see what would happen regarding you last point which is right on.

This is something those of us discussing that topic all seem to agree on is that the cost would be astronomical. And I would think it would need to be paid by those who have the biggest problem with abortion. At least in an ideal world that is who should have to pay for it!

[Hekate]

64. Steven, the artificial placenta takes us to an interesting excursion into bioethics...

However, I think some of those issues are already being settled by the existence of surrogacy, if you think about it. Married couples have been doing this for some time, in cases where the wife has been unable to carry a child to term herself -- perhaps she has ovaries but no uterus, for instance, or some other medical condition. Gay couples also now have that option. (Michael Jackson himself became a father by hiring surrogate mothers, and there seems to be considerable doubt that any of his children were biologically his, by design.) A man who wants to become a father by himself has the option of hiring a surrogate, just as a woman who wants to become a mother by herself has the option of visiting a sperm bank -- Neither imposes parenthood on an unwilling partner, and each personally takes on the attendant immediate costs, risks, and the lifelong crapshoot that is parenting, and I wish them all the best. A baby wanted that much is off to a good start.

The biggest question such couples have is what to do with the leftover frozen zygotes. They are emotionally and financially invested in their creation, but really -- a dozen or two dozen invisible zygotes waiting in the wings? I think the law in the UK is to store them for only so many years and then bye-bye, which at least removes the burden of decision from the couples involved. That's probably the way to go.

Which brings me to the "viability" you brought up regarding life at the farthest reaches of conception. My instinct is to say: don't go there (see above), but I'll work on being more nuanced. What I have is essentially a spiritual point of view regarding women, but the science is this: every month the menses of uncounted women wash away fertilized ova, anywhere from a few days to several weeks along. Literally countless ova are fertilized that don't implant themselves. (Sometimes the hormonal changes show up on an over-the-counter pregnancy test for awhile, and then the woman gets her period anyway. That's why.) Then there are the ones that do implant, but don't stay -- a very early miscarriage or a late period depending, and this is important, on your point of view. My mother used to say: Sometimes Mother Nature makes a mistake, and that's how She corrects it -- meaning, there was something inherently wrong, a lethal defect. Trying to make this about evil intent on the part of the woman (see: proposed laws regarding the criminalization of miscarriages) is just wrong.

A zygote or a fetus is not a parasite, nor is it entitled to full personhood; it is a genetic blueprint of what might become. In understanding that and in acknowledging that real people have feelings about that, we can try to come to a better understanding of each other. There is a spiritual dimension to those feelings for most women, whether they can give voice to them or not.

Legally, though, we need to stick with Roe vs. Wade, which was based on a common societal understanding that in fact goes back to the dawn of time in nearly every culture and religion: the first three months are entirely in the woman's domain (nonviable, doesn't have any of the necessary capacities to live outside the womb, used to be women didn't even tell anyone in case it didn't continue, and if she doesn't think she can take care of it for any reason going forward, she should be able to safely terminate).

The second three months it still is not viable -- and even though prenatal science has pushed the boundaries to save miscarried babies, on the whole they are not very healthy going forward, despite hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on hospitalization -- The woman should still have the choice not to have motherhood imposed on her. Abortion, however, becomes more dangerous for the mother, and it should be in a clinical setting. It's a nonviable fetus. Roe allows some restrictions, but life and health of the mother are paramount, as well as fatal defect of the fetus.

The third trimester is where it gets tricky, because it looks like a baby, has developed most of what it needs, and with medical intervention most can survive a premature birth now. It's "viable." That's where Roe placed most of its restrictions, and this is where most of the anti-choice hysteria centers. The restrictions in place seem sensible to most of us, because abortion at this stage is dangerous to the mother and the baby looks like -- well, a baby. Nonetheless, the necessity remains: we still need an exception for the life and health of the mother, and we still need an exception for fatal birth defects like anencephaly. Those are real issues. No one gets to that stage of pregnancy and wakes up one morning and puts "abortion" on her to-do list.

None of this is to deny the sorrow of infertile couples (some of whom may be helped by your hypothetical artificial placenta) -- which brings me to the spiritual dimension of intention. A wanted pregnancy is an intention. Just as the zygote is a genetic blueprint for what might become, becoming (or choosing to remain) pregnant because you want to is an intention to live a certain way. It doesn't mean anything will turn out the way you meant it to (see "crapshoot" above) but it does mean you willingly take it on as a free choice made by a free human being. Actually, you don't have to see that as spiritual at all, but it helps if others can comprehend that some of us do -- and that in our religious concepts, free will has a big place.

Didn't mean to go on at such length, but when Hekate revisits Demeter, sometimes a lot comes up.

Hekate

[stevenleser]

66. At work so I will have to read this later to give it the attention it deserves... nt

[pnwmom]

42. You're the only one here besides me who answered the second question.

And I agree, society has an obligation to the woman and the fetus for its health care; and to make sure their basic needs (nutrition, medical care, housing) are also met after the birth.

[stevenleser]

44. Yep, a few more after us did since then...

... that's a very important consideration.

[Hippo_Tron]

75. Question, do you know of any doctors who perform abortions on viable fetuses...

Without good medical reason for doing so? I'd certainly like to know of any doctors who, for example, will abort the fetus at 8 months because you suddenly decide someone suddenly decides they want a boy rather than a girl. Maybe in China, but I just have trouble believing it happens here.

[ejpoeta]

86. I am not saying it happens. I am saying that until the fetus can survive outside the womb,

the woman should be the one to decide. I know someone else had discussed the viability issue in regards to medical abilities.... I am referring to the ability to be born and able to function on their own. I do not believe that someone seeking an abortion at that late stage would be doing so because they just feel like it. It would be because there is something wrong with the baby.

[Major Nikon]

30. None, no, no

[Autumn]

32. It's a woman's choice. That's all.

[JaneyVee]

35. Answers:

A-it's the woman's choice but should be limited to 24 weeks unless the woman's life is in danger or will be born with severe complications or stillborn.

B-to provide access to safe and legal healthcare facilities.

C- no.

[Lars39]

37. Woman's choice, between her and doctor.

No limitations. Giant safety net for woman and child. I really like the French model, with allowances and very good child care.

Too often only the physical aspect of being pregnant is considered, totally ignoring the mental needs and wishes of the pregnant woman, often to a lifetime detrimate to her and her offspring's mental and physical health.
To ignore her mental needs and wants is cruel and inhumane, equating her with an animal.

[Avalux]

40. I find the term "reproductive politics" REPULSIVE, not stale.

No one, and I mean NO ONE, has the right to control a woman's choice when an unwanted pregnancy occurs. An abortion, which is a safe medical procedure, should be an available option without any repercussions or barriers, if a woman wants one. There should be no limitations.

The only responsibility society has in this case is to ensure if a woman chooses to have an abortion, it's as available to her as any minor medical procedure.

The morality of an abortion has absolutely nothing to do with government and laws. This country is secular, and religious beliefs which restrict the rights of women (thereby oppressing them) are unconstitutional.

Personally, I may believe certain things about 'life', when a fetus becomes a person, or whether or not I would personally choose to have an abortion; but I have no right to expect others to believe the same - and neither do our lawmakers (who are mostly MEN).

[lapislzi]

49. Three answers.

(A) All options including abortion, prenatal care, post-natal care, supportive infant care, parenting classes, anonymous adoption services, and counseling, should be available to all pregnant women from the moment of conception. Personally, I think these should be free, as should all medical care. It should go without saying that prevention of unwanted pregnancy should be made a priority, including education, free and available contraception, and reproductive health care for both men and women.

(B) See (A) above. Society's responsibility is to support the woman in her choice to either continue or terminate the pregnancy, and beyond, if necessary. If a zygote --> embryo becomes a fetus, its mother requires health care throughout and after the pregnancy.

(C) No.

You will note that morality does not enter into this discussion. Ethics, yes. In my opinion, it's difficult-to-impossible to assign "morality" to a medical procedure. Unless you have an agenda, that is.

[Arugula Latte]

52. ^ ^ Agree with this ^ ^ but would add:

We need paid maternal leave like almost every other country on the planet.

[Arugula Latte]

53. P.S.: Men who oppose a woman's right to abortion can simply go fuck themselves.

[lapislzi]

54. What you said, x 2

I especially like comment #2. Rosy has been a good friend to many men.

[LostOne4Ever]

56. Three related questions

(A) Its the woman's body it depends on what the woman wants. If she does not want to carry it, then she should have a right to have it removed from her body. The ONLY limitation I would put on it is that if the fetus is viable and can be removed from the mother without killing it or harming the mother, then all efforts should be taken to do so. If it can't be removed without harming the mother, then the mother's health should take precedence.

(B) Society has a responsibility to recognize and protect the woman's right to her own body above all else. While I do think there is a responsibility to the fetus (thus my viability statement above), that responsibility is limited (we don't even know if it will make it to term or not) and whatever obligations society has to the fetus is trumped by the woman's right to autonomy and self ownership each and every single time.

(C) Morality? Or legally? Morality its between the woman and her own conscience. Legally? None.

[Blue_In_AK]

59. 100% the woman's decision.

[MADem]

61. Wow--I haven't seen a double post since DU2!!!

I deleted this one, my comments are below....

[MADem]

62. Not your uterus? Not your business.

What medical procedures a person undertakes are not my concern. They shouldn't be anyone else's, either.

The only time "morality"--or more appropriately, criminality--should come into play is when a minor is a party to the pregnancy. Anyone messing with a kid should be arrested, charged, and convicted.

If the government or society is providing medical services to a person, that's what they're doing. They should not play the "You can have the vasectomy but not the abortion" and "You can have the Viagra but not the birth control pills" games.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that CHOICE means just that? It's not society's "choice," it's up to the individual. What part of "Mind your own damn business?" escapes people who have to continually revisit this issue?

If you don't like abortion, don't HAVE one. Problem solved.

Roe v. Wade was a long time ago--I guess we're destined to keep fighting it like the frigging Civil War.

[PeaceNikki]

63. I believe there should be ZERO restrictions on abortion. None. Nada.

On January 28, 2013, Canada celebrated 25 years of TOTAL reproductive freedom. Since their Supreme Court struck down Canada's abortion law in 1988, the country's experience is proof that laws against abortion are unnecessary. A full generation of Canadians has lived without a law and we are better off because of it.

Canada is the first country in the world to prove that abortion care can be ethically and effectively managed as part of standard healthcare practice, without being controlled by any civil or criminal law. Our success is a role model to the world.

After 25 years with no legal restrictions on abortion whatsoever:
- Doctors and women handle abortion care responsibly.
- Abortion rates are fairly low and have steadily declined since 1997.
- Almost all abortions occur early in pregnancy.
- Maternal deaths and complications from abortion are very low.
- Abortion care is fully funded and integrated into the healthcare system (improving accessibility and safety).
- Further legal precedents have advanced women's equality by affirming an
unrestricted right to abortion.
- Public support for abortion rights has increased.

Responsible abortion care: Since 1988, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has successfully managed abortion just as it does for every other medical procedure -- by applying policy and encouraging medical discretion for doctors, subject to a standard code of ethics.

Doctors abide by CMA policy and guidelines, and follow best medical practices based on validated research and clinical protocols. Criminal laws are inappropriate and harmful in medicine because they constrain care and negatively impact the health of patients.


Much more at link: http://www.rabble.ca/columnists/2013/01/benefits-decriminalizing-abortion

Joyce Arthur is the founder and Executive Director of Canada's national pro-choice group, the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC), which protects the legal right to abortion on request and works to improve access to quality abortion services.


See more of her work here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/06/06/343745/-Repeal-All-Abortion-Laws
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/writing.html

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. Blackmun got it right.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The [p154] Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) ( sterilization).

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

[Raffi Ella]

67. Morality?

As a civilized human being in the year 2013 I'm confused, whose morality are we talking about here? My morality, yours? Islams? Atheists? Wiccans? The Flying Spaghetti Monsters?

I'm sorry but I just find the use of the word morality in these questions to be laughable. Abortion and morality do not belong in the same sentence. Even if you think they do, again whose morals are we talking about?

No one can define for another human being what is right and wrong when it comes to choices in ones personal life. The government can no more force a woman to have a baby than they can force her to be religious.

Abortion is legal and has been for a very long time: What medical procedures a woman decides to have is between her and her Dr., no one else.

Frankly I am appalled by these leading questions, especially when you consider they are being asked of young minds who may or may not have the capacity as of yet to think critically, to question the questions.

[Gov101]

68. Frankly, none of that is relevant.

1. These questions aren't being asked of students. The students are asking you.

2. Morality refers to people's concepts of right and wrong. Some people see rape as the only valid reason for abortion while other people reject this. So question C is asking whether the reason matters to you. Either way the question does not imply that there is or should be one institutionalized morality.

[Raffi Ella]

70. And you're their teacher and allowed the morality question, got it.

What does ones morals have to do with established law? Last time I checked this was a secular country... Your students seem to be under the mistaken impression that their opinion matters when it comes to a woman's right to choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy- so much so that in fact they think it matters WHY one wants to get an abortion, lol.

I'm appalled that you as a teacher seem to think so as well. I'm dumbfounded that you would encourage such self self righteous delusions of grandeur- and in a government class no less!

Sorry but as an educated adult you really should know better. Unless of course there are other reasons behind this post, then it would all make sense.

As far as I'm concerned, as a civilized nation, we need to make Roe V Wade stronger and the safety net for those in need? needs to be expanded.

[Gov101]

80. Funny how your comments are replete with moral assumptions. I assume you realize this?

Right and wrong is the basis of all established laws. That's what citizens do as they participate in shaping their countries governance and law--they think about what they believe to be right and wrong.

Basically you're saying how dare other people ask a question in which a hypothetical answer might possibly transgress your own morality.

I don't even personally disagree with your particular moral assumptions, but jeez get over yourself.

[Raffi Ella]

82. lol.

No, please get over yourself. You're the supposed teacher here, YOU not only discussed abortion in a government class but then posed questions about it in terms of morality! YOU allowed/encouraged your students to frame the debate in that manner, not me! YOU allowed and encouraged your students to assume that not only is abortion a moral issue but you posed one of the questions in terms of having an obligation toward a fetus. That is pretty much a clear cut open and shut case of propaganda right there.

All I'm doing is calling you on it.

I see I am one of the very few people you responded to, interesting that. What kind of class exactly is this that you are claiming to teach and where are these open minded students of yours who have framed these questions in such a distinct way?

[Gov101]

83. On both boards I responded to accusations that the questions were biased, for opposite reasons.

So crazies not withstanding I'd say they did a pretty good job making questions.

[Precisely]

69. ^^^^^^^^^^!!!!!!!

[Raffi Ella]

77. Thanks for the support~

and if I haven't said so already- Welcome to DU.

[Precisely]

79. So well put

and thank you

[cynatnite]

71. It's the woman's private decision and not for anyone to limit or to judge. n/t

[Tikki]

73. WOW...since we tried to have a conversation with you in previous posts of yours and...

you weren't interested in a dialog until you got the answer you already wanted...
I need to ask...

Why are you here if not to learn?


Tikki

[Hekate]

84. Thanks for letting us know that

This was my first encounter, and I thought his introduction in the OP lacked a certain je ne sais quoi.

[elehhhhna]

74. none, yes, and no

[jwirr]

76. When said woman will be expelled from her Christian college if she gets pregnant. Been there done

that.

[handmade34]

78. happy that students are seriously discussing this

as a women who has had a number of children (that I love beyond measure) and also who has had abortions... (one before Roe V Wade... self administered)... this is how I strongly feel

(A) When an unwanted pregnancy occurs, what limitations and/or options do you think should exist for a woman?

...NO limitations!! women should always have total control of her body and access to good health care, whether it is for abortion or pre-natal care

(B) Does society have a responsibility toward the woman and/or fetus in this situation?

...society (we together) have responsibility for helping each other is all ways that we can (in every walk of life) and health care should be available to all (paid for with increased taxes)

(C) Do the circumstances of the undesired pregnancy matter to you when it comes to the morality of abortion?

...NO, the circumstances should be of no concern as to the morality of abortion

students MUST understand history, sociology and psychology to understand the importance of these issues...

[marshall]

81. As long as I'm not paying for anything, its not my business

When something is a public service, like education of children, and is paid for by public funds, then it is my business. Otherwise it is up to the individual.

[Lancero]

85. Bodily Autonomy

Basically, it means that a person has control over what happens to their body. It's why you can't be forced to donate organs, or for them to be taken upon your death without consent, even if such a act would save lives. Basically, it means that no one can legally use your body unless you concent to such use - Essentially this concept is why rape is a crime.

To say that a fetus can use a womans body without her consent is to, effectively, give a fetus more rights then any living being, while also giving a woman less rights to their body then a corpse has to theirs.

The anti-abortion group also feed's the rape culture - Their attempts to deny women the right of bodily autonomy is what leads to some people believing they are entitled to use womens bodies as they see fit.