Does "abortion on demand and without apology" describe your approach to the issue?

[redqueen]

Because the unnecessary, pandering language which further stigmatizes abortion is helping to erode women's rights.

The reversal of abortion and birth control rights must stop now!

Abortion is an issue that divides this country. This is no accident. How one thinks and feels about abortion flows fundamentally from how one views women.

We recognize that women are full human beings who must have the right – through unrestricted and unstigmatized access to birth control and abortion – to decide for themselves when and whether they will have children. We reject the view that a woman's highest purpose and fundamental “duty” is to bear children, even those she does not want or cannot care for.

...

Over 80% of abortion clinics have experienced violence, threats, or harassment; eight doctors and staff have been murdered. Today, 97% of rural counties have no abortion provider. One in four poor women who seeks an abortion cannot afford it and is forced to have a child she does not want. Five states have only one abortion clinic left.

This assault has intensified, not slowed, under the Presidency of Obama. 2011 and 2012 saw record new legal restrictions on abortion. Already this year, 278 bills have been introduced to further restrict abortion, including laws set to go into effect that would shut down the last clinic in North Dakota on August 1. Added to this, the Obama administration fought relentlessly to keep emergency contraception ("Morning After Pill&quot off the shelves and out of the hands of the women and girls who desperately need it.

Reproductive rights are in a state of emergency.

...

For too long, millions have watched in alarm as yesterday's outrageous and unthinkable attack has become today's “compromise position” and tomorrow's limit of what can be imagined. This dynamic must be broken. The political leaders of the Democratic Party cannot be relied on to do this. While posing as the last bastion of defense against these attacks, these “leaders” have in fact seriously undermined reproductive rights by seeking “common ground” with fascists and religious fanatics, by ceding the moral high ground, by severing abortion from women's emancipation and by refusing to stand up when abortion providers are murdered.

...

http://www.stoppatriarchy.org/abortionondemandstatement.html

[Orrex]

1. MISANDRY!

[Demeter]

55. You ARE joking, right?

[seabeyond]

169. right off the bat, you made me laugh....

i needed that.

[Orrex]

182. Aw, shucks.

I just happened to be in the right place at the right time!

[seabeyond]

187. exACTLY. that works. grinnin. nt

[DLevine]

2. Yes, that is my position.

And I agree with you that reproductive rights are in a state of emergency. It's horrifiying what is happening.

[Whisp]

125. It's a train wreck in slow motion.

And the crazy bagger's thinking is infecting even a site such as this that claims progressiveness. It is now acceptable to be anti-choice, if you are 'nice' about it.

fucking shit.

With all the awful things the baggers and pubs are doing to women's rights, this kind of thing Here makes me want to fucking VOMIT.

[DLevine]

129. Totally agree with you.

If anti choice rhetoric is permitted, what's next? It makes me sick.

[smokey nj]

3. Yes.

[lapislzi]

4. Yup. Pro-abortion and proud of it.

I am very glad I had an abortion and I have no regrets, even decades later.

It makes people squirm when I say that, though.

[redqueen]

5. Thank you for saying it. I don't regret mine either.

We need to de-stigmatize healthcare for women, before even more women lose access to it

[Autumn Colors]

33. Same here

No regrets, decades later, and the OP reflects my views.

[gopiscrap]

104. I am with you. I am not just pro choice, but pro abortion

[mother earth]

179. Great sig line.

[kydo]

116. This is going to sound odd

Your post made me think about my stance. BTW that's not the odd part.

This is the odd part....

I am Catholic, but I am Pro Choice because I am Pro Life. And now I find that I am also Pro Abortion.

See my definition of pro life is exactly that - I am for life. The mother is alive. The baby hasn't been born yet it only has the potential to become a human. Life starts at birth. All those things written about the evils of abortion from the church comes from old men not God, and not Jesus. Jesus didn't say, "Love thy neighbor unless she had an abortion." I also don't think it is sin for me to be Pro-Choice nor is it a sin to have an abortion.

Now, so far in my 47 years I have not needed to have an abortion. I have no idea what I would have chosen to do if I had. I would like to think I would have chosen to have the baby, but that is not a given. Nor is even carrying the baby to term. Some times things go wrong with planned pregnancies.

But I know one thing for sure.

- It's not my right to say what some one else chooses.

The reason I am adding Pro Abortion to my list is I never really took a side on the actual procedure other then to say it is a medical procedure. And I am for it as a legal medical procedure. Which is what it is. So it should be between a doctor and the patient, which is private and none of my damn business.

So because I think it should be legal, that by definition makes me Pro Abortion. And I am totally cool with that.

I am Pro Choice, Pro Life and Pro Abortion. Go figure.

BTW - Good for you for standing up!

I am so sick of hearing people who have no clue about abortion say the woman will have mental issues. That is so wrong. Same with the ultra sound thing. It will not change a woman's mind.

When you stand up and say you had an abortion you help dis-prove the misconceptions.

Thank you!

[lapislzi]

128. You're very welcome.

Sometimes abortion is the best outcome of a pregnancy.

I would have had WAAAAY more emotional issues had I continued the pregnancy.

I regret a few things in my life, but the abortion is not on that list. I regret being stupid about birth control when I was young and...stupid. I regret believing the jerk when he said he'd marry me. But not having his kid? No, don't regret that.

And thank you for your kind words.

[Flatulo]

138. Let them squirm. It's nobodies business but your own. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

6. Yep

[DireStrike]

7. I don't understand why anyone would pick a fight over 3rd trimester abortion

Isn't 6 months enough time?

Edit: and I agree with medically necessary 3rd trimester abortions. And frankly for any reason. But I think it's unhelpful politically to push for voluntary late term abortions, which the statement "abortion on demand and without apology" implies.

[redqueen]

10. Then why are you doing it?

Doctors only perform those operations under specific medical circumstances.

[DireStrike]

14. That's the only part of the statement where a disagreement might come up here

Other than that, I agree with the statement.

Edit: and I agree with medically necessary 3rd trimester abortions. And frankly for any reason. But I think it's unhelpful politically to push for voluntary late term abortions, which the statement "abortion on demand and without apology" implies.

[redqueen]

19. Yes, the anti-choice side has made tons of hay with that bullshit canard.

However, personal experience with just that procedure has turned staunch pro-lifers into pro-choice advocates overnight.

[PeaceNikki]

25. You can't fucking trust doctors ans women to make that decision??

Are you fucking kidding?

[haikugal]

32. There is a reason for that.

It treats woman as unthinking monsters who are nothing but selfish. Just the way they speak about women's liberation and rights defines who they think choose abortion and why. Think about it. It isn't about abortions, it's about women.

[DireStrike]

37. That's wrapped up in the statement though.

"Abortion on demand and without apology."

This is making a case that doesn't need to be made. Who needs a late term abortion "on demand and without apology"? Only the kind of "unthinking monsters" that they believe exist.

[haikugal]

47. In who's mind?

Yours evidently. Who are you to demand any oversight on a woman and her choice for a late term abortion? Why would she need to explain herself or apologize? Do you think women have abortions without giving it thought? It's a statement of fact...she should have access to sex ed, contraception (full range) and abortion starting with the pill on up. If she comes to the conclusion, for any reason, that she doesn't want or can't continue with the pregnancy she should have access to healthcare without fear or shaming.

[DireStrike]

77. I'm starting to think this is a useful position to state, based on the direction of this thread.

Please note that this is a semantic/messaging argument, and not a positional one.

I still think it evokes, among the general public, the negative image that has been created of some sort of wanton serial aborter. That image can then be easily dismantled, because as you say, it's ridiculous. Along with other abortion myths.

A majority of the country is already pro-choice, though. The attacks on choice are coming from a well funded and organized minority. Maybe further inroads on their supporters can be made with this position, but who knows if it will do any good.

[elehhhhna]

180. and may I ask "Apology to whom?!!"

wtf is this apology shit anyway?



this thread is making me steam up

[etherealtruth]

38. The "issue" over late term abortions is a Right wing tactic

It implies that these abortions occur frequently and "just because" ... clearly this is not the case

Banning late term abortions is a right wing tactic to placate an intellectually dull constituency.

Once again this goes to a woman's right to choose ... to choose what is right for her

[Flatulo]

154. I think they also want to draw a line in the same so that they can then move it. nt

[cali]

15. No, it's often not when it comes to severe fetal

defects.

It's just not very hard to do some basic research.

http://sciencenotes.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/what-causes-third-trimester-abortions/

[DireStrike]

20. see above

[joeglow3]

54. But why the need to collapse the skull?

THis is the only thing I have had an issue with. Clearly, there are rare situations where the head is so big, it creates an issue. However, in the majority of cases collapsing the skull doesn't make it easier to pass the fetus, as it is the shoulders that are hardest to pass.

[DireStrike]

80. How does that matter to anything?

The pregnancy is still going to be terminated regardless of specific medical procedures used.

Are you saying that the need to collapse the skull indicates a stage of development that should not be aborted?

I'm just having trouble seeing a point to your concern. Is it just squeamishness?

[PeaceNikki]

83. Where do you get your information?

[Sheldon Cooper]

108. How many children have you given birth to?

I had two kids, and I can assure you that the head is the hardest to pass. By far, and I have no idea where you came up with the shoulder thing.

[joeglow3]

210. My wife had Shoulder dystocia with our first kid

She is also an L&D RN and we have friends (husband and wife) who are OB/GYN's. All have said the same thing - the shoulders are the broadest part and the most difficult to pass through the birth canal. They also say Shoulder Dystocia is the scariest thing they see on a semi-regular basis.

[Sheldon Cooper]

216. I'm happy that you know all these medical people. Maybe they could tell you that the shoulders

do not come out at the same time. First one comes out, and then the other. But of course you'd know this, I mean, you've birthed exactly zero babies. Why can't you accept the truth from someone who has actually given birth?

And by the way, shoulder dystocia occurs in around 1% of vaginal births. I'm surprised that your medical friends see it very often at all, much less on a semi-regular basis.

[joeglow3]

219. I basing it on people who have deliveried thousands of babies

and not just pushed while someone else deliveried the baby 1-2 times. And I worded it the way I did to say to make it clear it is not commone, but not one of those ultra rare things someone sees once in a career. Of course, I think you knew that.

[gollygee]

145. You're wrong about the head vs shoulders

and there are birth defects that specifically cause the head to enlarge and are one of the reasons late term abortions are done.

[joeglow3]

211. Which is EXACTLY what I said in the very post you responded to.

[gollygee]

217. I guess it's because you called it a rare situation

It is rare among all pregnancies but not rare among late term abortions.

[joeglow3]

220. And I said I understand it in that scenario

You are specifically addressing an issue and dealing with it accordingly.

What I don't understand are the many situations when it is NOT an issue and, thus, there is nothing to address.

[gollygee]

223. Doctors choose the best method for any given situation

I don't know why you think you are in a position to second guess that.

[joeglow3]

229. Because I have seen too many doctors do things wrong

That is why I always get a second and sometimes third opinion. Guess I don't have the same faith you do.

[gollygee]

230. I have faith in the woman who is pregnant and the doctor deciding together

and I don't have faith in legislators making things better.

The pregnant woman has the same ability to get a second opinion as you have.

[joeglow3]

235. I never said anything about legislators

And yet, not one has been able to answer the question I originally asked: outside of an enlarged head of the fetus, how does "collapsing the skull" make the process easier?

[gollygee]

236. That's often why it's used

but in every case the head is indeed the largest part, and in some cases, for instance girls/very young women, the less the cervix is dialated, the safer the procedure. It's about safety. Why do you think people would choose that procedure? Because they think it's more fun?

[LeftyMom]

199. The head's the biggest inflexible bit.

There's a weird little turn they generally do to get the shoulders through, though in rough deliveries that doesn't always happen and broken collarbones are not exactly unheard of.

[flpoljunkie]

91. Thanks for posting. Facts are important.

[etherealtruth]

16. I would suggest researching why these abortions are typically performed

Knowledge is your friend.

Then when you ask "I don't understand why anyone would pick a fight over 3rd trimester abortion" you'll wonder why there is even consideration r/t to "banning" this.

[DireStrike]

23. see above

[uppityperson]

41. Here is a movie to watch. It is showing many places and quite the documentary about late term aborti

http://aftertillermovie.com/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/after-tiller-movie-review-documentary-lucidly-explores-late-term-abortion/2013/10/30/f0b0570e-40d3-11e3-a624-41d661b0bb78_story.html

“After Tiller,” a lucid, even-tempered portrait of physicians who perform late-term abortions, exemplifies the crucial role documentaries have come to play in civic discourse, which is so often whipped into partisan fury and emotionalism. In between straight-up journalism and op-ed histrionics, nonfiction narrative films — when done as well as this one — fill in the spaces between the facts with human stories that have the power to change the way viewers think about an agonizing personal and political issue.

The title of “After Tiller” refers to George Tiller, a provider of late-term abortions who in 2009 was assassinated in Wichita, Kan. Since then, four of Tiller’s colleagues have taken up similar practices: two in New Mexico, one in Colorado and one, LeRoy Carhart, who in the course of “After Tiller” moves his office from Nebraska to suburban Maryland. They currently are the only providers of third-trimester abortions in the country.

(clip)
“After Tiller” does viewers the great service of providing light where there’s usually only heat, giving a human face and heart to what previously might have been an abstract issue or quickly scanned news item. No one wants to think about late-term abortion. But “After Tiller” gives us a language to do just that. With luck, the ensuing conversations can be as humane and carefully considered as the film t

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2430104/

[ehrnst]

97. You think that women take that long to decide to terminate? Fallacy.

Physicians say that's not the case - that women don't wait very long after they find out they're pregnant to determine that they want to go on with it.

Some women don't know that they're pregnant until they're 3 months along - due to irregular periods, dieting, obesity, etc.

Most late term pregnancies that are terminated are done so because of health reasons - either the woman or the fetus.

That said, I think that we should not be using the terminology "On Demand." You can't demand an abortion or any other procedure from a physician - they must also consent.

They don't consent if they believe the woman is not doing it of her own volition, or if the procedure violates medical ethics, so third trimester abortions are very rare, and the medical community is able to take care of those few cases that are clearly outside the confines of normal procedure.

If a 13 year old was in a third trimester pregnancy - either because she didn't know she was pregnant, or she was having huge problems trying to find a way around parental notification laws, then yes, I think that's a case that an abortion provider or pediatrician would say is a justifiable 3rd trimester abortion.

[VADem1980]

155. Becuase the trimester is irrelevant.

A ban on late trimester is just pandering to the right and compromising with anti-choice woman haters!

It doesn't matter if the woman is at 41 weeks, whether it's a "medical necessity" or because she just changed her mind about wanting a child(maybe deadbeat father runs out on her and she can't financially support another mouth at the last minute?)- if she wants an abortion, it is HER BUSINESS and NO ONE ELSES. NO APOLOGIES. NO DISCUSSION.

[elehhhhna]

178. 6 months enough time for WHAT?

Nevermind. Not asking wtf you are talking about because you clearly have no idea.

WHERE TO EVEN START WITH THIS QUESTION. fuuuuuuuuuuuk. wow.

[MattBaggins]

191. Fuck others rights if it's "politically unhelpful"

[eridani]

215. There simply is no POINT in being against third trimester abortion

Good effing grief! It is flat out not possible to be outfitting a nursery and picking out names and consider having an abortion near full term because you have a fucking bad hair day or something.

Now if the baby dies in your womb, or severe problems develop that threaten your own life, that is a different matter. A medical emergency, to be specific.

[ZombieHorde]

8. Yes.

I would like to see all medical procedures be rare due to increased preventative medicine and health education, but you make a good point. Abortion is the only medical procedure that people say should be "rare," and this is most likely done for political reasons, rather than a hope for increased preventive medicine and health education.

[redqueen]

12. Thank you. IMO "safe" and "legal" are equally patronizing.

It's already legal FFS.

And it's a medical procedure so of course it "should be safe".

This pandering is part of the reason why women's human rights are under attack.

[tammywammy]

39. I think the usage of "legal"

Is affirmation that women's rghts are contantly under attack. Legal = safe in my eyes.

I don't think that usage is why it's under attack, it's been under attack since Roe v Wade.

[redqueen]

59. A linguistically defensive strategy got us where we are today.

It is a mistake to continue on that path, IMO.

[tammywammy]

62. I see what you're saying, and I can't really disagree either.

[gollygee]

146. I think "safe and legal"

at least to me mean that it should not become illegal and unsafe again.

[ZombieHorde]

176. That's interesting. I have viewed "abortion should be safe and legal"

as saying, "I'm pro-choice, and the anti-choice way isn't safe." I view it as a statement of political philosophy and an argument, but you don't think it is?

[redqueen]

200. I think it's defensive posturing, and as such, weakens a staunch pro-choice position.

It is legal, all medical procedures should be safe... why continue to argue for what already exists?

IMO instead of starting on the back foot, we should go on the offense. Stop ceding ground and reinforcing rhetoric which increases the stigma... start projecting rhetoric which stakes out the ground we should have already conquered. This is a medical procedure, and we shouldn't still be fighting this battle this many years after we started this war for this aspect of women's healthcare and women's human rights. IMO part of the reason we are having so much trouble is the willingness to pander to religious nutjobs and misogynist pieces of shit.

[ZombieHorde]

209. That is an interesting, and thoughtful take on it.

I like it.

[Iggo]

9. Yup.

[etherealtruth]

11. My position: It is none of my damned business

It is not my business what decisions an other woman makes regarding her health and reproduction. What I consider to be my business is making sure a woman (every woman) has the right to choose what is best for her ... as long as she can exercise her rights, my interest has ended.

[SQUEE]

122. This is me completely

I am actually personally solidly pro-Life, to the extreme end...But, you know what? It shouldn't mean shit what I think not my body nor my conscience. So in a way yea that describes what I think should be the law, it is not MY position. I should not have a position, thats my position.

[kiranon]

143. My position also. n/t

[Silent3]

13. Does "on demand and without apology" include or exclude any discussion...

...of late term restrictions?

Is this question itself something you don't want raised, because you feel that even raising the question at all contributes to an erosion of women's rights?

[redqueen]

17. D&Cs are brought up by anti choice people to cloud the issue.

As I've already said, doctors only perform those operations in certain specific medical situations, which make them necessary.

Women and their doctors deal with those situations, not ignorant outsiders with an agenda.

[Silent3]

53. I think this response of mine to another post...

...applies here as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3976600

[etherealtruth]

28. You ask this question as if women wake up 8 months pregant and decide ... wow I want an abortion.

Restrictions on late term abortions are a right wing placating meme. The vast vast majority of "late term" abortions are performed because of severe fetal anomalies and fetal death. Very often NOT performing these procedures compromises the health and life of the mother.

[Silent3]

48. I didn't ask that question as if anything

I know it's rare that anyone needs a late term abortion, and far more rare that someone would elect to have a late term abortion for no good medical reason.

Laws, however, are quite often written, and have to be written, to handle exceptional cases. I don't think it is at all giving into a right wing talking point to acknowledge that.

My right wing sister uses the same kind of logic in support of banning all abortions, and not even allowing exceptions for the mother's health. According to her, a woman's life being threatened by pregnancy is so rare that it's "just a liberal talking point to cloud the issue" -- so I guess for her, oversimplifying to allow no abortions is perfectly fine, since bringing up rare cases is a distraction to be hand-waved away.

[etherealtruth]

63. Your story actually illustrates my point perfectly

Had your sister been in possession of any facts you may have had a point ... she is not , you do not.

Not trying to be snarky, but you appear to be coming from a point of low information. Try a search of maternal mortality and morbidity (women do die in the US because of pregnancy and its complications).

Please re-read what I wrote, I did not call attempts to ban late term abortions a right wing talking point (you state "I don't think it is at all giving into a right wing talking point to acknowledge that. &quot ... what i said is that they are "a right wing placating meme"

It is designed to make low information (intellectually dull) constituents believe they have done something mighty when in fact they have not

[Silent3]

85. I certainly don't believe what my sister says about mortality being rare.

Death in childbirth used to be almost commonplace, and I know quite well that modern medicine (especially if you take abortion off the table) only reduces that risk, but that the risk is still high enough to be a real concern.

As for "placating" people, if you're not just trying to score points on DU, but talking about what needs to be in the law in order to gain general acceptance among the American public, "placating" has to be there. Obviously most people dislike abortion, even when they are strongly pro choice. With the squeamish feeling the subject of abortion gives so very many people, you're going to have to expect that to be reflected in the law, even when the law is strongly pro choice.

Bringing up what my sister said was merely to illustrate the idea of dismissing what you think is rare (whether you're correct about that rarity or not) because a preference for dogmatic simplicity over dealing with messy complications.

[etherealtruth]

105. I am really not sure what you are stating

Are you contending that third term abortions should be outlawed because "pandering" is part of the political process (By and large I do agree that pandering is deeply engrained in the process). Whose rights do we give away to placate others?

[Silent3]

110. I'm stating that third trimester abortions should certainly be allowed...

...but if the law puts some minimal restrictions on when they are allowed, restrictions that give broad latitude, and the benefit of the doubt, to a woman and her doctor in determining when such abortions are necessary, that would be placation enough.

[MattBaggins]

195. People are squeamish about gay sex

and about mixed race marriages

Do we placate them by taking away others rights over themselves, or do we tell the squeamish to eff off?

[nashville_brook]

65. since late term procedures are already heavily restricted, i'm not sure what you're

asking for in the way further concessions.

do you think there needs to be more restrictions on late term procedures?

or do you need to hear women say "yes, we need your input in our reproductive health," in order to feel like a balance has been achieved? are you looking for more policy or compromising rhetoric?

[Silent3]

74. I'm not asking for any concessions at all. I'm thinking that the OP is saying...

...that any of the restrictions that are currently in place now need to be eliminated... and never spoken of again.

[PeaceNikki]

30. Yes. It implies women and their doctors cannot be trusted to make decisions.

[abelenkpe]

60. Late term abortions are performed when there is a serious health risk

heartbroken parents who desperately wanted their child to live are typically the ones who get late term abortions not people who just decide they don't want their baby. Putting restrictions on these abortions endangers lives and heaps pain on people who are already going through a tragic event.

[Silent3]

71. Even if it's not something at all likely to happen in real life...

...many people want to see some reassurance in the law that a late term abortion is indeed for matters of health. It should be possible to write that into the law in such a way the doctors and patients are given the full benefit of the doubt in making that decision, without giving into any secret right wing plan to make abortions harder to get.

[truebluegreen]

82. My question is why should "many people" or ANY people

other than a woman and her doctor have any say WHATSOEVER?

We need politicians to butt out of this and the sooner they realize that the better.

[Silent3]

92. People have a say in all sorts of laws that don't directly involve themselves

The sticky point in all discussions of abortion is what the legal standing is, if any, for an unborn child.

For me, it's not very great. It's zero in early pregnancy. Yet it doesn't make much sense to me that there would be a totally stark, clean line between no legal standing at all and full legal standing that occurs precisely and in totality at the moment of birth.

If you grant that a late-term unborn child has some value as an independent human being, then it's no stranger for people outside of the scope of a woman and her doctor to have a say in the matter of late-term abortion than it is for all of us to have a say in the laws that assure the medical qualifications of a doctor that a woman brings her post-natal child to.

[jeff47]

127. Why not? Everything else in our system has that change at the moment of birth.

Can't declare the kid on your 1040 until the moment they're born. If it's 11:59 on December 31st, you get the deduction all year, but if it's 12:00 on Jan 1st, you get no deduction for that year. One whole minute makes a massive change.

And there's a ton of other programs where the kid goes from nothing to "person" at the instant of birth.

The anti-abortion crowd has tried to change that in order to push more bans on abortion.

If you grant that a late-term unborn child has some value as an independent human being, then it's no stranger for people outside of the scope of a woman and her doctor to have a say in the matter of late-term abortion than it is for all of us to have a say in the laws that assure the medical qualifications of a doctor that a woman brings her post-natal child to.

So you can't trust the woman to make this decision, but you do trust her to make the trillions of other life-and-death decisions when raising a child?

[Silent3]

141. Neither I nor the law in general place infinite trust in parents in all matters.

This is why Christian Scientist parents can be forced to bring their children to doctors, why the doctors we all bring children to have to have certifications that go beyond parental approval of those doctors, why there are child endangerment and child abuse laws, etc. The fact that parents still do plenty of awful things, either by breaking those laws or in areas not covered by law is not a reason to have to no such laws at all.

As for your point about taxes, the need for a clear, simple boundary for tax accounting purposes hardly equates to decisions on matters of setting boundaries on matters of life and death (or life and non-protected life).

[truebluegreen]

149. I do not grant a late-term fetus has more status than the human being that bears it but

that is not the issue. The idea that a woman would suddenly decide after 6 months, 7 months, 8 months? that it's all just too much trouble--and that this is what we need laws to prevent--is a ridiculous, paternalistic, rightwing meme. It does nothing but further the idea that women just don't understand, that they need counseling on alternatives before they can be allowed to decide what to do with their own bodies and their own lives.

There is ZERO place for politicians in this issue.

[Silent3]

157. I certainly don't grant MORE status, but I suspect you know that phrasing is a straw man.

I would grant a late-term fetus something more than zero status, however.

While I certainly know the kind of situation you describe is going to be rare, the law does need to cover rare cases. It's not an indictment of all women to realize that a few women will make bad decisions. I don't take it as a personal insult that there are laws against stealing cars, as if someone is telling me that I personally don't know better and can't be trusted around any else's vehicle.

Some parents, including mothers, have put newborn babies in dumpsters after all. There's nothing right-wing or paternalistic in acknowledging that sad reality, and there's nothing that hurts all women or all men in making that illegal.

[truebluegreen]

163. We already have laws about putting newborn babies in dumpsters

so that is a straw man. I regard the search for appropriate "laws" in these cases as similar in scope to the necessity for "laws" to prevent voter fraud--a solution in search of a problem, or in fact directed at a totally different problem.

We disagree.

[Silent3]

181. What does the issue of the laws that we already have have to do with this?

Did you turn this into something about whether new laws were needed, which has nothing to do with what I was talking about?

My impression of the OP (which I asked about, didn't assume, but never got a clear answer for) is that the OP is against any restrictions on abortion whatsoever, existing or new. I was merely responding as to why I wouldn't be quite that absolutist about it.

[truebluegreen]

183. And I've already stated, very clearly,

that I am against any laws on the subject at all. You are not an absolutist on this issue and I am. We disagree. Still.

[gollygee]

175. I suspect

that if sex ed, birth control, and abortion were more easily available, there would be fewer newborns in dumpsters.

[abelenkpe]

93. Except that all the recent laws proposed to do that

also make abortions harder to get and have fun little asides meant to shame women like forcing them to view the ultrasound or wait a certain number of days. No one is having a late term abortion on a whim. They are not easy to get. They have saved the life of my good friend and of my daughter. So argue with someone else. I'm never going to agree with your desire to put restrictions on legal medical procedure so that 'many people' can feel self righteous over something that is none of their business.

[Silent3]

106. "all the recent laws proposed" have been a rash of extreme right-wing zealotry

I think the scope of the discussion has to consider issues beyond that, past history, and where things can and should end up in the future.

In most cases, especially where teabaggers have gone crazy, I'd take restrictions away from what they've tried to make a not-legal medical procedure. In fact, I'm not aware of any current laws I think are too lax. I think the OP is getting at something much more than not adding any more restrictions, however, but rather suggesting what perhaps sounds like an elimination of any and all restrictions on abortion that currently exist, not just recently-created ones but all of them -- something that's just not politically possible given American feelings about abortion, no matter how much one thinks an absolute zero of restrictions is a desirable ideal.

[thesquanderer]

102. I agree, "likelihood" is not the issue.

It doesn't matter if 99.99% of late term abortions are for health reasons. You still have to allow for the other .01% in the law... either you allow it for non-health reasons, or you don't, but you can't just ignore the possibility.

[MattBaggins]

193. No late term restrictions

not your or my business unless you are pregnant.

[ismnotwasm]

225. ..

[SidDithers]

18. Yes...

It's a woman's decision, and she should be able to choose without restrictions.

Sid

[dembotoz]

21. fuck yes

[haikugal]

22. Yes...

on demand and without apology or explanation. A woman has a right to self determination.

[Wounded Bear]

24. I feel it is the only real practical solution...

By that I mean that abortions will happen. The current retrenchment against it will only bring back the back alley coathanger crap that killed or sterilized so many women pre Roe v Wade.

The only real answer has to be: It's a woman's right to discuss that with her doctor and her own conscience and make that decision. End of discussion. Only a RW asshole will proclaim it is thought of as an 'easy' decision. I can't imagine it could be, except in cases where the woman herself is a psychopath of some kind and probably should be prevented from having children anyway.

[redqueen]

36. So you believe that terminating a pregnancy should weigh on a woman's conscience,

and if ending that pregnancy doesn't do so, she's a psychopath who should probably be sterilized?

Really?

[BrotherIvan]

56. I've been floating around posting that same thing this last week

When we add in the catch phrase that it's a "tragic" or "heartbreaking" decision, we are buying into the crap that abortion somehow equals the murdering of a baby. That somehow, a child was hurt or lost.

It's a baby once the mother carries the fetus to term and the baby is born. Until then, it's not.

There is so much guilt and shame that have been put on women who are only making the right decisions for their own lives and health. Our country has unconsciously bought into the pictures of a 30 week-old fetus being murdered. Women reinforce it to each other. If women weren't led to believe that every miscarriage or abortion was the death of an actual child, perhaps some of that guilt and shame could be lifted and people would then be able to understand that it is a medical procedure and necessary for health.

[ScreamingMeemie]

131. No, no, no. Wrong, wrong, wrong...

"It's a baby once the mother carries the fetus to term and the baby is born. Until then, it's not."

You don't get to decide this for a woman either. To say this is to be exactly like the right wingers who want to say that a bunch of cells is a life. It's a life, a baby if you will, if that woman decides it is.

When I back a woman's right to choose, that is what I am backing. Her right to decide when life begins...for herself. Her right to choose to carry the fetus or not. I don't get a say in anything, nor do you. Sorry.

Miscarriage is the death of a child...for me. And you don't get to tell me otherwise. You are negating a set of real feelings for the women who feel that way.

Thank you.

[BrotherIvan]

139. You are free to BELIEVE as you wish

Just as people are free to believe in religion, Santa Claus, &c. But medically it is not a child it is a fetus. By pretending it is a child, it creates unnecessary feelings of guilt and immorality for women seeking health care.

[ScreamingMeemie]

142. You have a lot learn. So incredibly wrong.

You don't ever get to decide that. Way to turn a serious issue into a joke. It is only each woman's right to decide that
Not yours. Not my uterus=not my opinion and please keep the idiocy that is religion out of this next time. Thank you.

[BrotherIvan]

151. I think you are lecturing me because you think I'm a man

Not that it matters. And I reiterate, you are free to believe and feel as you wish, but it does not make it scientifically or medically true. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact. Just as people want to believe that life begins at conception or that abortion is murder, it does not help to spread the idea that getting a medical procedure, i.e. an abortion, is killing a child.

[ScreamingMeemie]

159. I don't know what you are

and I have this argument with a dear friend all the time. She's a woman. You don't ever get to be involved with someone else's choice.

[BrotherIvan]

171. "Without Apology"

My argument is not whether a woman should be free to carry a fetus to term or not. In fact, it is very much and vehemently the opposite. What I am arguing against is that because women are taught that every fetus, every fertilized egg that implants itself, is a child so therefore an abortion equals the killing of a child. I want women to feel free to make the very best medical decisions for themselves, without misinformation, superstition or GUILT.

I think the pro-birth crowd has used the ambiguousness that "when life begins is an opinion" to step in with their falsehoods and take over the conversation. It has led to the shaming and persecution of women who choose to terminate pregnancies. It is leading to laws trying to claim that life begins at the moment of fertilization. It allows people to call women and abortion providers "Baby Killers" and murderers. All based on a falsehood that has no scientific fact whatsoever. Science has decided when life begins and therefore abortion is a legal medical procedure. As I said before, our less religious European counterparts are not faced with guilt or shame because they are not constantly fed the notion that a fetus is a child.

And I am not telling other women how to think or feel, but I do know many friends, who when they learned the truth were able to let go years of tremendous guilt and shame. Perpetuating "pro-life" myths does nothing but hurt women.

[ScreamingMeemie]

189. Many people come to their own conclusions

without exposure to the anti-choice (they are not pro-life) movement. It is important that we don't interfere on any woman's right to choose with our own when does life begin ideas.

[Prism]

153. I think you should post this as an OP

Because it really clarifies something in my mind.

I'm pro-choice, down the line. But that doesn't mean I don't spend time thinking about the moral and philosophical implications of abortion. I'm forever thinking, "When does life begin? When does the biological process cross a line into an autonomous human? How is that decision made? Where is that arbitrary line drawn?"

Your answer is persuasive and clarifying, IMO. I've read quite a bit on the subject, but for whatever reason, your words have clicked a few things in place for me.

[Wounded Bear]

73. Nice try, queen....

I think that RWers tend to trivialize the concept of how 'easy' that decision is.

Yeah, I think it will (not "should&quot weigh on a woman's conscience, but I trust women to make the right decision for themselves and their situation. And, no, I don't expect any woman to spend the rest of her life suffering angst for a decision she makes as a younger woman.

As I said, it is truly a private decision a woman must make. I would like to think that most women have support around them to make a rational choice, but I fear that few enough do in the current anti-woman climate the Repubs are fostering. I'm not your enemy here. The RWers making the kind of hyperbolic statements like you just applied to my comment are.

I said that there are some women who probably shouldn't have children. Same applies to many men becomig fathers, too. I never said anything about 'sterilization.' SMH.

I oppose any restrictions on the right of a woman to make that choice. Unequivocally. I support any agency that assists women in making that choice, and those who help her carry it out. I oppose any organization that wants a canned, legislative 'solution' that tries to turn women into second class citizens.

[redqueen]

78. How else can you prevent such 'psychopaths' from becoming pregnant again?

It is good to see you support a woman's right to choose. I didn't get the reason for your emotive language and I still don't.

[Wounded Bear]

90. Well, I apologize for the 'emotive' language...

In essence, though, my point is really that those 'psychopaths' should be allowed access to abortions to prevent them being responsible for raising children, I guess. But I'm certainly not entertaining anything like a forced abortion policy.

I also don't advocate for the current atmosphere of trying to make women feel guilty about having an abortion. Her choice, her life and body. I think it would be a difficult decision for any woman to make, but if she makes it in the right frame of mind, and with the proper support with her, she shouldn't have to suffer needlessly for it. I imagine many of the women I meet daily have had abortions. It's none of my business unless she chooses to share about it. Even then, I take my cue about how to react about it from her.

[handmade34]

161. I give you some latitude

because you are a man…

I accept that you don't think women should be made to feel guilty and that you imagine it would be a difficult decision to have an abortion… it is for some… not so much for others…

...the talk about it being a difficult decision to make, often is a way to make abortion seem illegitimate or unwise…

women should always have control over their own body and there should be no restrictions…

I have had 2 abortions and did not feel one moment of remorse or guilt or confusion about them… I can talk about them freely with every confidence that I did the right thing… I am passionate about women's right to choose because one of those abortions was illegal and potentially dangerous… no woman should EVER have to go through that

[haikugal]

165. (((Hugs))) to you my sister...

my heart goes out to any woman who had to have an illegal abortion...I want to make sure no other women have to resort to such things because abortion has been made illegal or restricted to the point that it isn't available. I get really angry when I think about all the games being played about women and their bodies. We are not political footballs, we're people and have a right to be treated as the intelligent, capable people that we are.

[uppityperson]

99. The only case where the choice of an abortion is "an 'easy' decision" is psychopaths?

For some, it is an easy decision. For others, not easy at all. And for those with the easy decision? They are in no way psychopaths of some sort and many have gone on later to bear children and be wonderful parents.

You seem to be saying that if a woman makes the decision to abort with ease, she should "probably should be prevented from having children anyway."

Are you serious?

[MadrasT]

221. Actually for some women, it is a very easy decision and "conscience" does not come into the equation

And those women are not automatically psychopaths.

[prole_for_peace]

228. My abortion was an extremely easy decision

and I'm not a psychopath. As soon as I got home from the doctor appointment that confirmed my pregnancy I pulled out the yellow pages (yes it was THAT long ago) and flipped open to A and made an appointment in the next few minutes. The hardest part of my decision was finding a way to get the money. $300 was a lot to a 19 year old in 1984.

And after the procedure was over all I felt was relief and hunger (because my appt had be for 10 am but I was not seen until almost 4 pm. )

[PeaceNikki]

26. Fuck yes. And remove ALL restrictions. We can trust women and doctors.

[cali]

51. huh? all regulations? No.

that doesn't make any sense. there are perfectly reasonable regulations regarding, for instance, medical waste, etc

[PeaceNikki]

61. The Case for Repealing ALL Anti-Abortion Laws

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=journals&uid=203041&page=3

[PeaceNikki]

66. I meant restrictions.

My fingers typed the wrong word.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Well..

Yes, without apology, BUT I hold society responsible for the condition even reaching that point, by engendering unwanted pregnancies by erecting barriers to information, and access to contraceptives.

Free, easy access to family planning materials like contraceptives can largely take the issue of abortion, except in the case of medically necessary instances, right off the table.

So as long as that is happening, I deplore the abortion rate as an indictment of right-wing social policy that seeks to punish people for the 'sin' of doing the dirty and oh by the way, a baby is TOTALLY not meant as a punishment for the beast with two backs, you dirty sinner you.

(And when they say 'dirty sinner' they are always glaring at the woman, I've noticed)

[redqueen]

43. Yes free access to birth control drastically reduces abortions. (Imagine that!)

But those contraceptives can fail, so that's why there needs to be no stigma about this procedure. None.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. I agree.

[xxqqqzme]

29. No. It is

a medical decision to be discussed and decided by a woman and her doctor.

[spanone]

31. why and who would you apologize to????

[BillyRibs]

34. AS a former Catholic I am

Solidly behind a woman's right to choose, But Feel terribly guilty about it.

[Arugula Latte]

42. I'm sure the Catholic hierarchy feels little guilt about oppressing women all these years.

[BillyRibs]

46. LOL

SUUUUUUURE they do! (Just in case you don't "hear" it)

[BrotherIvan]

69. That's because they came up with that nice little story

that life begins at conception. In the Bible and most of history, life didn't begin until the first breath. A fetus is not a baby until the mother carries it to term and it is born. Until then, it is actually rather similar to a tumor or a parasite in that it diverts energy and nutrients from the host and requires it in order to live and grow. Those scrambled eggs you had for breakfast? We have placed so much emphasis on the value of a fetus, we have lost all blooming perspective.

[socialist_n_TN]

192. THIS^^^^^^^^.....

Even from a religious perspective (and I was around some SERIOUS fundies when I was a kid), the "breath of life" thing kind of puts that anti-abortion view into doubt.

Personally, I'm a communist and a man. As a commie, abortion is not a state matter. As a man, it's not my business. As a matter of fact if it were up to me to perpetrate the race, humanity would die out. There's not enough redeeming qualities in humanity for me to personally go through that.

[BrotherIvan]

196. And yet there is quite a lot of dissembling on this very thread

I still blame it on the fundies and junk science being spread as fact. But still...damn, I had no idea.

[Little Star]

35. Yes it describes my approach to the issue.

[tammywammy]

40. Yes. n/t

[Demobrat]

45. YES

n/t

[X_Digger]

49. That about covers it. It's a decision between a woman and her doctor. n/t

[ScreamingMeemie]

50. If it's not my body, it's none of my business.

End of story.

[truebluegreen]

84. Well said.

[mike_c]

52. yup, that pretty much summarizes my opinion....

On demand, without apologies. It's a woman's RIGHT, fer cryin' out loud.

[Swede Atlanta]

57. Absolutely NOT.......

without some context....

I want abortion to be rare. But in order to ensure that we need to

(1) Provide early and meaningful sex education (not abstinence only)
(2) Provide access to contraception from condoms to the pill, etc.
(3) Provide pregnant women with OPTIONS that include
- Carrying the child to term and adopting them out WITH public assistance for maternal and natal care
- Providing a mother that has no resources with education, child care, health care for herself and the child, nutritional food for both, a safe living environment for both, etc.

If we don't do the above then we face disaster.

I absolutely do NOT want a woman who has become pregnant to walk into a facility and "demand" an abortion. She should be presented with options from carrying the baby to term and keeping it to carrying the baby to term and adopting it out, etc. Should she have all of these options be presented but they do not work for her then I support her right to request a termination of the pregnancy.

The last thing we want is a concept of 'abortion on demand'. It is a losing statement.

[redqueen]

70. Do you honestly think women get abortions because they're unaware of other options?

Once a woman has decided to have an abortion she has already thought about her options.

Treating her like an idiot once she walks in to get the procedure is patronizing and paternalistic.

[noiretextatique]

81. only to authoritaruans who believe why should control women

abortion should be treated like any medical treatment...period.

[Th1onein]

103. I agree with you. Absolutely.

[JTFrog]

109. Yea, we know.

I really hope you go ahead and jump into this thread as well. Maybe you can finally provide that final nail.

Like we didn't have to read through your disgusting posts in another thread with your incredibly dangerous positions regarding doing away with Roe v. Wade and your history of calling women who have had abortions murderers.

Please just stop.

[REP]

119. No you don't. You don't think abortion should ever be an option.

[get the red out]

58. Yes

It is simply no one's business. No woman should be forced to carry a child to term if that is not her wish. No girl either, parental consent should NOT be necessary.

The most instructive thing about the abortion debate is that the anti-choicers are anti-birth control, anti-health care, and anti-aid for families as well. It wasn't too many years ago when saying that would get you counted as a tin foil hatter by many, now their agenda is very clear and it's got nothing to do with life.

I am in favor of birth control being easily accessible, free, and no questions asked no matter what a person's age is.

I will not apologize for believing that a person's body is their own. I am anti-drug war as well and think legalization would be a far more sane choice than what we have now in that area as well. Your body, your choice.

[Vashta Nerada]

64. Yes.

A woman should be allowed to get an abortion whenever she chooses.

[BlueJazz]

67. When I say "Fight for Women's rights" I also mean Fight as in "fists-a-flying"

There is no "Compromise"

There is no "Well, meet us half way" (as spoken by the Repugs)

No...My thing is "Keep your laws off of innocent people that you are trying to SUPER-CONTROL because
of some sick-ass-insecurity-bullshit-god-knows-what"

Shut up, stick your repressive laws up your ass and sit down on them or I'll punch your fucking lights out.

(Ahh..can you tell I'm rather tired of their crap?)

[NRaleighLiberal]

68. Yes. n/t

[ehrnst]

72. I would phrase it differently since no one can demand a procedure from a physician

A individual physician can indeed refuse to perform a procedure that violates medical ethics, or standards of care. This is a good thing - you could walk into an emergency room and 'demand' an amputation of a healthy limb, but there would be little to no chance of it, which is why there are no laws specifically prohibiting amputation on demand.

The anti's LOVE to portray women with healthy late term pregnancies, all of the sudden walking into a clinic and demanding an abortion, and actually getting one.

The pro-choice movement lost the war on words with "Partial Birth Abortion."

I think we need to focus on preventing harm, and the moral implications of these regulations.

"Forced or coerced childbearing should never be inflicted on a woman, any more than abortion should be."

"Forced childbearing is as much of a violence upon a woman as rape."

"Childbearing by choice, not by legal requirement."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. Yes. It's a basic human right to have control of ones body.

[AAO]

79. absolument mon ami

[ancianita]

86. Yes. Yes, it does. Women have the final say on what/who goes into and out of their bodies.

That is their human, social, legal, medical and spiritual right. That's what they were given free will for, I tell the religious, and it's between no one but them and their doctors. Men can have a say, but not the last word.

[hamsterjill]

87. Yes. Abortion on demand and WITHOUT apology.

The only thing that I would add is "private". No woman should ever have to discuss this issue with anyone other than her healthcare professional unless she so chooses.

I am tired of people being dragged into the argument about "when" it's okay and when it's not. If it's a private thing between a woman and her doctor, that decision is theirs to make together and no one else would ever have to know about it.

If someone doesn't believe in abortion - they shouldn't have one. But they have no right to impose their religious and/or moral views on other women. And THAT should be the end of it!

[Niceguy1]

107. simply discussing it on an internet

Formum doesn't impose on anyone...

(I am referring to the thread a week or so ago where some progressives voived an unpopular position on abortion)

[enlightenment]

88. Yes.

I do not regret my decision and do not hide or apologize for it.

[Glorfindel]

89. Yes, it does, exactly, and I'm not influenced by any considerations of personal advantage

I have always thought that if I had something inside of me that I wanted out, and someone else denied me permission, I'd have two words for that person. The first word would start with "f" and the second word would be "you."

[Zorra]

94. Yes. My body, my choice, without question. nt

[Coyotl]

95. Actually, "free abortion readily available in any hospital" would be my approach.

[flpoljunkie]

96. Roe v. Wade gives states the right to regulate abortions beginning in the second trimester

Tragically, too many Republicans would like to ban abortions entirely--birth control, too!

The Court's ruling:

In a 7-2 vote, the Court said that the Texas law violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Harry Blackmun, writing for the majority, argued that a woman's decision to end her pregnancy is protected by a broad right of privacy, which though not explicitly laid out in the Constitution, previously had been found by the court to exist within the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and 14th Amendments, as well as the penumbras, or shadows, of the Bill of Rights.

However, the Court recognized that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the health of the pregnant woman, and Justice Blackmun's decision laid out a framework in which varying degrees of state regulation was allowed based on the stage of the pregnancy. The decision held that the state could not prohibit abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy; in the second trimester, states could issue regulations "that are reasonably related to maternal health"; and in the final trimester, once the fetus is viable beyond the womb, the state could regulate or even prohibit abortion except in cases "where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/wars/cases.html

[Arkana]

98. I'm not "pro-abortion". I'm in favor of giving women the choice.

I'm not a woman--I have no idea what it's like to carry a pregnancy to term and I never will, so I find it odd that anyone thinks I should have a say in it at all.

[BainsBane]

100. No

I believe abortion is a difficult moral issue that only a woman can decide for herself.

[Puzzledtraveller]

117. Im in line with that.

I usually avoid the debate. When I am asked though I make clear my personal position against it is not religious, in fact it's more based on humanistic issues a la Hitchens. I do support choice at the polls.

[The Green Manalishi]

101. It is not a human being until the mother says it is

Period.

[Silent3]

113. Does that apply even after birth?

Leaving legal room for a mother to abandon her post-partum child to the wolves as well?

I'm pro-choice, by the way, but I find your words for expressing your own pro-choice position a bit odd.

[The Green Manalishi]

135. I asked my mom that question. The "when is it too late to abort"

her response:
"senior.
Maybe Junior".

[Flatulo]

218. Interesting position... Does that cover into the teen years?

This could be a great motivational tool for recalcitrant teenagers.

[The Green Manalishi]

237. That's what Mom said

[MineralMan]

111. Yes. Abortion should be the decision of each woman to make.

No other input is required, since it's none of anyone else's business.

The same is true of all reproductive decisions women may make. It's the decision of the woman, and belongs to nobody else.

[Prophet 451]

112. Define "on demand"

I actually think Roe got teh right balance. Complete freedom in teh first trimester, gradually more restrictions in the second trimester and then restricted to medical reasons post-viability (when most pregnancies would be wanted anyway).

[leftstreet]

114. Yes

And I'd like to see the 'debate' about a woman's right to choose be RARE at DU

[Puzzledtraveller]

115. yes/no

At the polls I support choice. Personally I loathe it. yet at the same time I do not think the government should infringe on the choice. Being a male I also feel myself biased therefore I do not weigh into the debate often.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

118. As I posted earlier...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=639399

[SchmerzImArsch]

120. I believe that statement more accurately

Described the postpartum abortions practiced by our War Machine world wide.

[ellie]

121. Yes.

[vlakitti]

123. To answer Redqueen's question...

"Does "abortion on demand and without apology" describe your approach to the issue?"

Absolutely. I cannot understand how any progressive could respond in any other way.

Abortions are necessary and have been so throughout history and the only question is whether they are legally recognised or whether they are persecuted by the state, or religion, or whatever.

[LittleBlue]

124. The only thing I'm against is elective third trimester

Health of the mother? That's the primary concern regardless of the development stage of the fetus. Pregnancy isn't viable? Of course these women should not be forced to give birth to babies without brain stems, hearts, lungs, whatever, that's just common sense.

I think that puts me in the mainstream of pro-choice. It's really a common sense position rather than something that should be debated over and over. Thank fuck my state is sane and none of the red state restrictions will be tolerated here.

[Silent3]

148. What you said pretty much describes where I stand on this.

But I'm left wondering if the OP even leaves that much room for nuance.

I get the impression that many of our fellow DUers want (practically demand) that we drop any such caveats and qualifications, trust that anything and everything we could possibly be concerned about is covered by women and their doctors making decisions together, otherwise we're oppressors of women who have no right to consider ourselves Democrats, liberals, or progressives.

I'm pretty sure even the phrase "elective third trimester" can get people jumping down your throat because this idea is, apparently, nothing more than a right-wing trick, just something that does not and cannot happen, or is so ridiculously unlikely that it's best left unmentioned and unaddressed by law, otherwise it somehow becomes a foothold for far harsher restrictions.

[VADem1980]

158. It's the woman's body.

Why oppose third trimester, other than to throw right wingers a bone?

[Silent3]

160. Because at a certain point I think an unborn child gains enough value...

...as an independent human being that the mother's ownership of her own body, which isn't in question, isn't the only thing that needs to be weighed on the scales of justice.

[redqueen]

166. "unborn child" - What is with the RW rhetoric?

Fetus.

It is a fetus.

If a woman is pregnant and wants to refer to the fetus she wants to carry to term a "child", fine.

Referring to fetuses that way in a general sense helps misogynists and the right wing.

[Silent3]

184. I think it's perfectly fair to refer to a fetus that's ready to survive on its own...

...outside of a woman's body as an "unborn child". If the description were inaccurate, I'd change it, but just because a few people think it sounds too much like a right wing ploy (as if the phrase isn't used by plenty of people, regardless of political views), no.

[VADem1980]

174. NO such thing!

There are no unborn children, only fetuses. You need to evaluate from whom you're getting RW that talking point from!

[Silent3]

186. Same response as to the other similar response to my post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3978873

[VADem1980]

207. Your point being? I was responding to someone else. Amazingly, my opinion hasn't changed.

[Silent3]

212. In post #174 you said "NO such thing!" in response to my post #160.

My post #186 was a consistent, on-topic response to your post #174. Now you're telling me that you were responding to someone else?

[redqueen]

203. Because some people just can't stand not being in control of women's bodies.

It's disgusting to me that this shit keeps getting dredged up.

People of both sexes get butchered by unlicensed people attempting to do plastic surgery but no one is freaking out about it. It's just an unfortunate thing that happens.

No woman would get an unnecessary D&C from a licensed medical provider, but these people just can't stand thinking that it might happen, somewhere, someday.

The fact is, it might, but some things are simply beyond our ability to legislate out of existence (its' cute how so many can accept that about rape, though, amirite?)... it's tragic when this kind of shit results in a loss of life but that gives these people NO RIGHT to impose on half the human race.

FUCK this shit pisses me off so bad.

[KansDem]

126. Apology?

Who apologizes to whom?

[One_Life_To_Give]

130. Not exactly

Think of all those young women in Red States and elsewhere whom we owe an apology. For having failed to ensure they received the reproductive and family planning information that might have averted this.

[Rex]

132. It is a woman's choice as to what to do, not mine.

It is her body and I will always respect her decision on the choices she makes, unless they go against her own self preservation. Then I will step in and say something. That would be the only situation.

[Ohio Joe]

133. Yes

Women should be able to make their own health decisions without questions or prying. It is their own business.

[Scout]

134. ... a request should be sufficient... n/t

[stillcool]

136. absolutely.

and free access to health care and contraceptives to any one who is sexually active.

[Flatulo]

137. I'm not a fan of the term 'demand'. I can't 'demand' pain medication or antibiotics or anything else

from my doctor. He or she has to consent to the treatment or procedure. Doctors are not slaves. They should not be forced or compelled to administer treatments or procedures that they oppose on ethical or religious grounds.

Having said that, I believe there should be no legal, financial or ethical impediment between a willing medical professional and any woman who desires to terminate a pregnancy, for any reason and at any time. She should not need her husband's or partner's or anyone else's permission or approval. She should not have to wait or otherwise be subjected to any sort of 'educational' requirement designed to change her mind.

Period.

[GeoWilliam750]

140. Yes, very much for women's rights

[redqueen]

144. Wow. I never knew so many people were unfamiliar with the meaning of "on demand". nt

[PeaceNikki]

147. no shit.

[redqueen]

204. Like it's hard to figure out...

and hasn't been a rallying cry for 40 goddamned years.

[RebelOne]

150. Yes and no apology needed. n/t

[prairierose]

152. Yes, that is my position...

abortion on demand with no apologies. I am so tired of this argument. This has been a fight for most of my life.

[Nye Bevan]

156. Why in the world would anyone ever "apologize" for an abortion?

Any more than they would "apologize" for a tooth being extracted?

[Scootaloo]

162. Yup

It's really not difficult. Every ounce of opposition to this simple approach stems from the mindset that women are unthinking sluts who need to be reigned in by know-better men.

Painfully transparent.

[Humanist_Activist]

164. People should feel no more guilt over abortion than getting a tooth removed...

or a gall bladder or appendix cut out. Its a medical issue, no more, no less, and should be regulated in the same way as any other medical procedure, no more, no less.

[dionysus]

167. i think there are good reasons for having one, and bad reasons for having one, and it's none of my

damn business what the reason is; it's a matter of choice.

[xchrom]

168. yes. nt

[RedCappedBandit]

170. Yes. Well said. Appreciate the thread. nt

[redqueen]

205. Thank you. nt

[seveneyes]

172. It's a Woman's decision only

Not the sperm donor, not a lawmaker. It's that simple.

[TBF]

173. My view is that termination of pregancy

is a medical issue between a woman and her doctor.

[yellerpup]

177. Absolutely.

On demand, without apology. A woman's medical history is her own private business.

[DirkGently]

185. YES. Eom.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

188. the way i genuinely feel about abortion is the way i feel about most healthcare issues

i really dont care what medical decisions people make for themselves unless it impacts my life and it only really impacts my life when its about vaccinations.

i hate that due to the politics and the states desire to control women's bodies, i have to have a strong opinion about a medical procedure


so yes i am pro-choice pro-abortion etc and wish i didnt have to be. to me its like being pro asthma medication.

[riderinthestorm]

190. Yes!!! nt

[loyalsister]

194. Yes

Thanks for the post! We need as much advocacy as possible.

[ismnotwasm]

197. Yes.

[Mc Mike]

198. Yes. nt.

[Warren DeMontague]

201. I don't think anyone should apologize for making their own decisions.

It's the people who feel entitled to control the choices of others- who try to take away agency, choice and freedom- who owe the apology.

[Small Accumulates]

202. Yes. n/t

[Revanchist]

206. I agree, but also think that:

If we ensure that all children receive proper sex education including the proper use of contraceptives,

If we ensure that contraceptives of all types, including items like Plan B are available and affordable,

and if we find away to reduce the number of sexual assaults including rape and incest (and this one is more about changing the attitudes and opinions of my gender, not yours)

Then the need for abortions could be decreased. I don't see it as an either or situation, we can ensure that abortions are on demand and without apology as well as reducing the "need" for them.

[hrmjustin]

208. Yes. I get very nervous about putting restrictions on a woman's right to choose.

I think Woman can make this choice by themselves.

[Auntie Bush]

213. Who in the hell needs the Gov to come between a women's rights to abortion?

It's none of their God damn business.

[hrmjustin]

214. And it is mostly men pushing these restrictions. I personally think they hate women.

I also think they are afraid of women so they use this crap as a form to control women.

[cynatnite]

222. My position is this: "Other than my doctor, it's no one's fucking business why I want an abortion."

[el_bryanto]

224. No it doesn't.

I don't think Government should restrict abortion; but I think it would be best if there were as few abortions as possible.

Bryant

[Bradical79]

226. Yes

Aborting a pregnancy is a medical decision. Giving birth is a health risk, and being able to abort a pregnancy is an important health option for a woman to have at any point.

[retread]

227. Yes.

[Recursion]

231. Sure

If the assholes are going to press the issue, yes: abortion, on demand, without restraint, explanation, or apology.

Enlightened self-interest, gentlemen: if they can control the lady-folks' uteri, they can control our prostates. Let's nip this off the bud. A medical procedure is between the patient and the doctor, period.

[Agony]

232. Yes, full stop

abortion on demand and without apology.

[B Calm]

233. Yes, after all it's the law!

[joshcryer]

234. Yes.

The question then becomes, in 20 years, whether aborted cells can be adopted or appropriated by those who want them. I think that is a much more interesting discussion. I've seen some here argue that said cells should be flushed down the toilet, essentially, if the lady so chooses. I don't think that's realistic. If those cells can survive, it goes beyond that, most certainly. Particularly if those cells can't be removed chemically without damaging the host.