At what point should abortions be prohibited?

[FatSlob]

assuming no exigent circumstances, at what point should an abortion not be permitted? Please, vote and tell us why you voted the way you did. remember, these questions assume no rape, incest, or other extenuating circumstances. Have at it. I'm interested in seeing the diversity of opinion here at DU. Let's win the House and Senate in 2006!

[Wat_Tyler]

1. It's up to the women. I won't answer this poll.

[FatSlob]

2. I'm talking about law.

I assume that you mean that there should be no government restrictions, correct?

[Wat_Tyler]

6. I will provide an environment for women to make their own decisions.

[FatSlob]

10. Please, explain further.

I'm not quite certain what you mean. am I correct in assuming that you mean that the government should not be involved in the decision making?

[Wat_Tyler]

18. If I were in a position to legislate,

I would provide women and doctors with every option to help what must be an unbelieveably difficult situation.

[VelmaD]

3. Thank you...

every time I see a post like this from a guy on DU it reaffirms my faith in your gender. :loveya:

[Wat_Tyler]

8. Don't worry, Velma. We're only raising your hopes

to cruelly dash them again. :o

[rkc3]

9. FatSlob is trying to get laid - don't be fooled.

[FatSlob]

15. got some last night.

I love Mrs. Fatslob!

[rkc3]

22. You should be good for another 6 months then. Sorry for the accusation.

[FatSlob]

24. I hope my wife gives it to me more often than that!

[ContraBass Black]

26. But why would you lose faith in our gender in the first place?

;-)

[VelmaD]

38. Have you been reading...

over in the other GD forum this past week? ;)

[ContraBass Black]

40. No, I like myself too much to subject myself to that kind of pain.

[sandnsea]

4. Extenuating circumstances

That's the whole fucking point. You CAN'T legislate for extenuating circumstances. It's a goddamned mother fucking MEDICAL ISSUE. That's why you let a woman and her doctor make the fucking decision.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

:argh:

[Jack_DeLeon]

74. Sure you can...

If you argue its a "medical issue" then you can legislate that doctors make the decision about if a pregnancy could cause harm to the mother.

Its obvious however this is more than just a "medical issue," rape and incest dont make abortions more necessary from a medical standpoint.

And having an abortion just because taking care of a baby might mess up your finances does not make it a medical issue.

[noiretextatique]

5. no gender discrimination in healthcare

stay out of women's wombs...period. the medical profession is perfectly capable of setting common sense standards. the role of government should to be protect the rights of women to all medical procedures.

[sangh0]

7. 2/3 of Americans agree with the Dem position

and the republicans know this, so they are trying to get us to change our position to a more unpopular one.

Rove thanks you.

[wuushew]

11. People need to read things more carefully

Third month does not equal third trimester.

Is there some reason that choice is being heavily chosen?

[FatSlob]

19. explain that, I'm ignorant about how the time thing works out.

[noiretextatique]

71. tri=3...pregnancy =9 months, ergo

1st trimester = 1-3 months
2nd trimester = 4-6 months
3rd trimester = 7-9 months

the time stuff is an important part of this non-issue :eyes:

[Jack_DeLeon]

76. Maybe because...

many people figure if you are going to have an arbitrary abortion (no extenuating circumstances like a medical problem popping up later) better to get it out of the way sooner than later.

I would say that if you cant make up a mind in the first 3 months then you shouldnt even have one.

[Not Me]

12. As a man, especially as a gay man, I have no vote.

This is something that should (always) be a woman's decision.

[Bridget Burke]

13. Late term abortions are not easy to get.

But there are circumstances in which they are needed.

[Ducks In A Row]

14. bullshit poll. not taking part.

freepers are liars and cowards who can't win an honest election.

go to iraq if you like the rethugs party so much.

[FatSlob]

17. WTF are you talking about?

I think you replied in the wrong thread.

[drdon326]

16. UNTIL THEY'RE 10 YEARS OLD !!

JUST KIDDING.

[mitchtv]

20. I hope those who voted for restrictions are women

cause it's none of men's business

[stopthenoise]

68. maybe a different argument

I'm new here so this might seem like a freeper post, but this type of argument in the abortion debate has always seemed weak. Suggesting that it is "none of men's business" if a woman has an abortion is, in my mind, absurd. It implies that the debate centers around an ammoral topic. I would think that all topics concerning the possible killing of a person would be open to discussion by all people. Even if you believe that a fetus is not a person, I would think that you could understand that those who oppose abortion do so on the grounds that it is a person, and that these people couldn't possibly accept the idea that the killing of a person is off limits to a huge portion of the public because of their gender. I don't want to start further arguments about abortion, just to point out that during such debates the dialogue could be made more effective and fair.

[HereSince1628]

21. I feel inclined to prohibit abortions _mandated_ by the government

I'm not sure this still goes on but abortion and sterilization have been forced on what were deemed the mentally handicapped.

I wish this topic had its own forum. It's important but tends to go around in more of less they same orbit. Putting everything in one forum where people might help move the discussion to another level even if it doesn't solve the problem.

[sandnsea]

25. Try it

Make the rules. Go ahead. Give it a go. Go get the statistics and all the circumstances where abortion is done, first trimester to last. Go find out what happens when a woman in her 7th month comes up with cancer. Figure out toxemia. Go figure it all out, then come back and make a law that will guarantee NO woman will be unable to get an abortion due to health reasons, including mental health. Go ahead smart guy.

[HereSince1628]

35. slow down, read, breathe while you reply, don't shoot from the hip

Would you be in favor of abortions mandated by an agency of your State or Federal government? I have great difficulty believing that any DU'er would serious accept that.

So I'll chalk your response up to raging post response syndrome.

I hope the rest of your week is better than today.

[sandnsea]

46. Can I be any clearer

NO.

I'll chalk your post up to head up the ass syndrome. Way too much of it going around these days.

I don't expect my days to get any better as long as there are people like you disguising yourselves as progressive Democrats.

[HereSince1628]

53. How would prohibiting state-mandated abortion conflict with progressivism?

You asked at what point would I prohibit abortion. I said at the point that abortions were mandated by the government.

I think that is not only reasonable thought for a progressive, but also for a Democrat.



Moreover, since you have made an issue of this aspect, why don't we
make a deal to run a poll on Wednesday as to whether objecting to the eugenics policies employed in northeastern states during the first half of the 20th century is or is not progressive.

I think that many DU'ers are aware that laws and regulations of those states were seen as model programs by Adolf Hitler.

[Bridget Burke]

49. It's the other side of "freedom of choice"

A co-worker found out very late in her pregnancy that there was a problem. The child would not live.

She went through with the pregnancy, gave birth & the child died. It was a very wanted child & her faith helped her deal with the tragedy.

Nobody told her she should end things early.

[BuelahWitch]

23. When should Viagra be prohibited? n/t

[sam sarrha]

27. Bush Aborted 152 when they were over 18... not counting those in College

[Abelman]

28. 18 years old

Then, slap 'em with an M16 and send 'em into the desert. We can mass-abort them then.

This is stupid. It's not my business what a woman does with her own body. If it was my child, I'd be against it, but it's the woman's choice through and through.

It goes against the nature of this country to legislate that type of morality.

[cali]

29. Let's Talk About Abortion.

Really hard to talk about. But I think we need to. As I write this, something like 15 people have voted, but only Wat has left a comment- that to the effect that he wouldn't comment as he's not a woman. I don't think we can cut men out of the argument.

First of all, I'm a woman. I've had an abortion. I voted that abortions should be legal only for the first three months should there be no exigent circumstances. There are lots of circumstances that are exigent, and abortion should always be an option for women in those circumstances.

Medical advances that effect viability and a clearer understanding of fetal development are two of the reasons that I believe as I do. Ultrasound pictures of a a 20 week fetus are pretty amazing. I find it difficult not see incipient personhood there.

I understand that partial birth abortion is a bogus issue. Women don't have partial birth abortions unless the fetus suffers from a serious anomaly. At least I believe that's so.

My point of view is not rooted in political expediency, but I do believe we need to at least talk about abortion in the political framework.

[Shoeempress]

30. I'm voting for after the child reaches 18, you can't abort 'em, before

it they annoy you, it's OK, (heavy sarcasm)

[Robert Oak]

31. give me a break

the whole "partial birth" abortion was really referring to a procedure
to limit the risk to the mother when a fetus was just plain not going to live. It's brain had filled with water, it's something that goes wrong in a pregnancy.

The radical right took this to task and odds are they didn't stop
any abortions of a healthy fetus in the first place...they did manage to limit medical options when a pregnancy has gone terrible wrong...
there would have never been a baby and now to make matters worse, they endanger the life of the woman.

So, this question is ridiculous. You cannot give a black and white
answer on this crap because it implies that woman are aborting
their babies who are just fine and dandy, going to live, no pregnancy complications and so forth at 8 MONTHS! and that is just BS.

There are situations, like the above, where medical procedures should be allowed and it's up to the family and the medical community exactly
what they want to do...

It goes into the same category of someone on life support and are you going to pull the plug or keep them imprisoned on machines. Well,
that really is a very personal decision frankly.

now your bonafied "I don't want to be pregnant period" abortions
these days are and should be within 3 months.

but, this whole thing is ridiculous. The reality is the radical right
wants to stop a woman's right to choose ignoring the difficulty of that choice as well as ignoring the issue of a mass of cells versus a fully formed human being and when does that occur?

Stopping stem cells that will be most likely thrown in the trash anyway? Hey, that's on the radical right plate...claiming any fertilized egg is somehow "life"...

well, gee wiz, stop using soap and water for you're murdering thousands of fertilized cells right there. I mean it's ridiculous!

I personally want to see as many options as possible so that choice
never has to be made. The morning after pill for example, was very good, better birth control in general.

But, because this is the creation of life and truly is a grey zone...
nobody really knows what life is, when it really begins, where it goes when it dies and so on...we're in a mess...

but nobody can tell me a petri dish of cells is a human being and nobody can tell me if a woman does get pregnant and is responsible and doesn't want to have a baby, she shouldn't be allowed to, as early as possible get an abortion.

the facts are too in.

Notice the radical right never fights for child care, increases in the pay equality for women or any other governmental policy (which of course they have in Finland, Sweden and so on) that would truly foster support for the family....nope, no way...just this control over a woman's body...and frankly it goes back to the days where a woman was property and a vessel for the "seed of man".

Good god.

[ContraBass Black]

32. I won't vote, but

I don't trust the government with something as personal, painful, and important as this. I oppose restriction, because any at all opens the door to more.

However, I am opposed to abortion at the latest stages of pregnancy for nonmedical reasons, or used casually in place of contraception. Abortion at any stage is not something to be taken lightly. I do not think abortion is risk free, but allowances must be in place for special circumstances that do not require a woman to bare her soul before strangers to apply for a permit. A woman should have the final say over her own body. Even if it were my child in question, one that I very much wanted, without the responsibility of carrying it to term, I should not have the priviledge of deciding its fate. This is why I am pro-choice.


I intend to never cause an abortion myself.

[Hamlette]

33. I'm shocked so many voted "up until birth" which is beyond Roe v Wade.

I voted after 6 months because of the reasoning in roe v wade.

Unless a monther's life is in danger, I don't think a woman has the right to ask a doctor to kill a viable life which means, basically, the last 3 months.

Freaks me out.

[Mallifica]

41. I totally agree

I am a woman and a HUGE pro-choice supporter and activist. However, if there are no extenuating medical issues to consider, and a fetus can survive without the body of the mother (which happens, typically, in the seventh month), then it should be considered a seperate entity. This has already been decided in Roe, as long as we protect that, there's no reason to squabble here.

[sandnsea]

47. They CAN'T

For chrissake that's the whole fucking point. We don't need any more laws because these abortions are only done for medical reasons anyway. "Partial-birth abortion" has been a massive fraud on the American people.

[meatloaf]

34. Depends... How old is Bush and how far back are retro-active

abortions currently allowed.


Just kidding.

[Old and In the Way]

36. How about we leave it up to the woman to decide

either alone or with whomever she may want to consult?

[Beaverhausen]

52. Women and their doctors should decide.

[gumby]

37. Arguing this issue is to be the Right-wing's handmaidens.

The issue of months and trimesters has already been decided by Roe and State laws.

To continually bring abortion up is to find a way to scapegoat women's autonomy in pursuit of a political agenda.

I reject all of these "arguments" and "polls."

Beat down women for your advancement at your own peril.

[4_Legs_Good]

39. I'd comprimise on last trimester unless the Mother's health is in jeopardy

And maybe 2nd trimester with a good reason.

Focus on ending unwated pregancies in the 1st trimester.

And no comprimise unless we could drop the issue once and for all.

david

[fwiff]

44. Who's to determine the "Good reason?"

Most women don't *want* to have an abortion. Circumstances of their own compell them to make a decision. No one, yet no one should tell a woman what she can do- it is between her and her doctor, and her God, if has has one.
Women who opt for a 2nd or 3rd trimester abortion usually have a damn good reason for doing so. Why is it anyone else's business?

[4_Legs_Good]

51. At some point, perhaps the fetus's rights trumps the woman's...

I'm not saying I'm happy with it, I'm merely saying that it might be true.

I know the "good reason" deal is stupid, so make it a very low bar - something like, "abortion is allowed in the 2nd trimester if it is being requested by a woman making the choice of her free will." so she's not being coerced to do it by her parents/boyfriend/husband.

I think it is very hard to argue, though, that the fetus has no rights at a point when it becomes able to survive on its own. If, however, the woman's health or life are at stake, then they trump the rights of the fetus.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to get into an argument; it's just that I argue with strict anti-choicers all the time, and I try to pry out little concessions on their side and figure out where we might be willing to concede a bit too. I try to convince them that believing that a fertilized egg is a human being is a fundamentalist notion, and while you have every right to believe it, you cannot legislate fundamentalism into law, just like you wouldn't outlaw eating shellfish because Jews think it's wrong, or animals in general because *I* think it's wrong. So therefore you have to figure out at which point scientifically we can agree that the embryo/fetus has rights. Traditionally that's been at birth.

Anyway, again, I didn't mean to get into an argument and certainly understand your point of view.

david

[saracat]

79. The fetus rights never trump the women's . End of debate

Sandra Day OConner made the point that if you rule against abortion you are at the same time ruling that the state can force you to have an abortion because the door swings both ways.That is why you can't start to put limits on it!

[meti57b]

42. If you think abortion is wrong, then don't get one. Why is that a problem.

[Wat_Tyler]

50. Exactly. A woman who has an abortion has to live with it.

We don't. Therefore, as it has zero impact on our lives and planet, we should stay the fuck out.

[Maddy McCall]

43. Doctor-patient decision and privilege...

keep the government out!

[HereSince1628]

55. Well some government might be a good thing, for example

Abortions are and should remain a legal medical practice to ensure they are conducted in a safe manner for the woman.

Abortifactant chemicals can be found in hardware stores and growing in gardens. I would prefer that women use something rather safer than homemade medicines, but I feel that a person should never be allowed to sell such brews to another.

Similarly surgical abortions should be conducted by licensed practioners in a safe manner in a safe environment.

Ensuring safety pretty much demands government involvement, NOT in the decision to have an abortion, but to make sure that abortion is seen as a legal medical practice whose safety is monitored.

The need for safe abortions was one of the major issues I remember discussed at the time of Roe v Wade.

[slackmaster]

45. My position on abortion matches mine on gun control

The system ain't broke, so let's not fix it.

We have modest restrictions in place that seem reasonable to me. If you don't want an abortion or think they're wrong, don't get one.

[flpoljunkie]

48. An exception for the life & health of the mother must be maintained

throughout the pregnancy. Leave this decision to the woman and her doctor, and keep the government out of this personal, medical decision.

[The Flaming Red Head]

54. Our children are going to be aborted in this insane war at age 18

The Republicans believe in abortion only when it suits them and much later in life.

[Old and In the Way]

56. How many women want abortions now because they don't want

to bring children into Bushworld? A government for peace is a whole lot more conducive to bringing children into the world than a government that lusts for war.

[baldguy]

57. Abortion is a MEDICAL issue.

Medical issues are a private matter between a patient & his or her doctor.

At what point should a hysterectomy be prohibited? Or an appendectomy for that matter?

When the doctor determines that it is medically harmful or unnecessary, thats when.

[snippy]

58. Congress and state legislatures should not practice medicine.

Statement on Federal Court "Partial-Birth Act" Decision by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Washington, DC -- The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) applauds the decision of a US District Court Judge in San Francisco who found that the so-called "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act" is unconstitutional. US District Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled in Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Ashcroft that the act passed by Congress in 2003 infringed upon a woman's right to choose abortion. "Partial-birth abortion" is a non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know as dilatation and evacuation (D&E).

The 2003 act struck down by the District Court blatantly disregarded the two-pronged test the Supreme Court established in 2000 in the Stenberg v. Carhart case. The Supreme Court ruled that a state abortion ban violated the US Constitution by (1) failing to provide any exception for the preservation of the health of the woman, and (2) being so broadly written that it could prohibit other types of abortion procedures such as D&E, thereby "unduly burdening a woman's ability to choose abortion itself."

With the federal abortion ban of 2003, Congress tried to circumvent the Supreme Court's requirements by declaring to the nation's physicians and patients that such a procedure is never needed to protect a woman's health -- notwithstanding opposing opinions from the medical community.

As noted in an ACOG Statement of Policy (1997, reaffirmed in 2000) and in ACOG's amicus curiae brief filed in the Stenberg case, although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision."

The District Court was correct to strike down the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act." ACOG opposes this legislation by Congress that attempted to supersede the medical judgment of a trained physician, in consultation with a patient, as to what is the safest and most appropriate medical procedure for that particular patient.

http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr06-02-04.cfm

[ecstatic]

59. Maybe a little bit of context should have been added to option 1

I think the idea of aborting a healthy fetus, in a healthy woman at or near "birth" is ghastly and wrong. Maybe those who voted for it were making exceptions for the health of the mother, but either way, some context should have been added. That is the type of miscommunication that has alienated our party from the voters.

[Uzybone]

62. I agree

it is disgusting. So if the dr wanted to induce the baby on Wednesday, and the mother decided to abort it on Tuesday, that would be ok to those people? Shcoking.

[FellowAmerican]

60. Come on!

52 people thinks it's ok up until birth?! Please!

[Uzybone]

61. Woman and medical professionals decision

but if I had to choose: I think by the 6th month you should know if you want it or not.

[strategery blunder]

63. Your poll doesn't include an exemption for the health of the mother!

I would personally think someone who is expecting should know what to do with the fetus by the fifth or sixth month, but complications can develop after 6 months that put the baby's and/or mother's health in danger. Your poll doesn't reflect this.

So saith a Christian pro-lifer trying to be reasonable.:)

[FatSlob]

64. No room, that is why we assumed no exigent circumstances. thx

[donheld]

65. It's between the Woman and here Doctor

NOBODY ELSE!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

66. Your poll questions are flawed since right now unless there is a threat to

the mother, one would be hard pressed to find a doc to terminate a pregnancy in the last trimester.

[rob-ok-vin]

67. I told my kids I have until the 65th trimester (about 18 years)

It makes disipline a lot easier.

[mitchtv]

69. one crime greater than abortion

giving birth to a unwanted child

[GinaMaria]

70. At what point should the government make medical decisions

for me? Never.

[FlaGranny]

72. I couldn't vote in your poll -

my answer would have been - none after the third month except when the fetus is incompatible with life or the mother's life is at stake. Of course, that is only my personal preference, and I do not believe this is a subject for the government to concern itself about.

[Starlight]

77. That's mine, too.

That's why I chose that it should be legal until birth - because there is always a possibility of extenuating circumstances that can't be foreseen. So I'd say up to 3 months, no restrictions, after 3 months, with medical recommendation.

[genius]

73. Here's my take. Anytime they can save the baby during procedure

they should. No one has the right to control a woman's body. But if the baby can function on outside the mother (at the time) even if it requires medical procedures, they should do their best to save it.

[DuaneBidoux]

75. Understand that Up until Birth means you MUST actually kill the

baby. I worked in a third trimester abortion clinic in the only state where it was allowed. We actually had to inject the baby, inside the women, with poison to kill it, because otherwise you would induce labor and just end up with a preemy.

I couldn' live with myself after that. Viability for me is the key. A women always has a right to get the baby out of her body. In the early stages they simply induce labor, later on they must actually poisen (or sometimes they scramble the brains) of the baby.

[FlaGranny]

83. I have worked in the medical field for 40 years

and I NEVER met any reputable physicians who would perform late abortions unless the pregnancy was life threatening or the fetus was incompatible with life. If you worked in such a clinic, you worked for totally unethical physicians.

[berni_mccoy]

78. I think women should be the ones to determine this

but if you are asking me... I don't agree with abortion, and if asked by a pregnant woman, I would explain why, but I would not legislate my beliefs on her.

If it came to legislature, it should definitely be prohibited at the point where a baby could survive without the mother. But I believe the earliest a baby can survive is something like 27-28 weeks (and that's a slim chance), but the baby should be given every chance to survive on its own if it is medically possible. Of course, nothing has as many shades of grey as this issue does, so I may change my opinion given new information (yes, that would be a flip-flop).

[juliagoolia]

80. Some idiot Freeper or RW Press will

quote this F*king poll and accuse us of all kinds of things..with blanket statements.

I think its probably not wise to put polls out like this that do not give alternate answers like..

Its not up to me, thats up to the woman and her dr.

I think you got too many answers for the top because you didnt give enough options. Or false options.

[China_cat]

81. You don't have 'other'

if you did I would vote and explain that it should be retroactive.

[KitSileya]

82. I voted not after 4 months

- elective abortion that is. Medically necessitated abortion should not be limited.

My point of view is based on a lot of factors. I think it's wrong to allow elective abortion after the fetus can survive on its own outside the womb. 24 weeks is the cutoff point these days for when a fetus is deemed viable, at least in Norway. I've seen premature infants born at 27 weeks and later, and I believe that at our current stage of medical technology and knowledge, giving even these children as healthy a life as possible is very difficult. I know that premature children at 30-35 weeks can suffer after effects - I know this personally, as my twin brother and I were born at 35 weeks, and we have the classic concentration problems etc. (He also got cerebral palsy, which is also typical, due to lack of oxygen during birth.)

I believe there's ample cultural precedent to consider the the 4th/5th month a sort of boundary. This is, if I'm correct, when the quickening occurs, that is, the woman feels the baby for the first time. I think that's a good cutoff point.

Oh, and in case you need my 'credentials' as it were, I'm a 29 year old woman. I've never had to live in a society where abortion was illegal.