An Abortion Poll

[Nederland]

What would you call a person who believes that abortion should be safe and legal in the first trimester, but illegal after that with an exception for the health of the mother?

Pick the option that best fits your view of such a person:

[SteppingRazor]

1. I'm pro-choice, and that person is pro-choice...

since that is exactly the guidelines called for in Roe v. Wade.

[BlueCaliDem]

86. I'm Pro-Choice and that person is Pro-Choice. n/t

[Mz Pip]

2. Isn't that pretty much

what Roe v Wade says?

Mz Pip
:dem:

[danalytical]

3. I think that is a reasonable solution

Once a fetus starts the second trimester, it really starts to become more of a baby and less of a growing tissue mass. The third trimester should be flat out illegal unless there are dire cosequences for the mother. When a baby can live outside of it's mothers womb, that's definitely an independent life even if it needs life support for the first few weeks. A little common sense on this issue all around could go a long way. The choice for an abortion needs to be done during the first few months. It's unethical to terminate a baby once it becomes a living being. IMO

[Deep13]

4. Well, it's a bit complicated.

Privately I'm pro choice and think that person is a bit confused and is a moderate on the issue.

Publicly, as a rural Ohio Dem. operative, I'm a moderate like the hypothetical person because I want to claim both sides of the fence and nuetralize the issue for my candidates.

[rocktivity]

5. WHY is it legal after the first trimester?

Because the fetus is capable of viability outside the womb. Because it's too dangerous for the mother?

And why has it never occured to me to ask that question before?

:shrug:
rocknation

[tnlefty]

64. A fetus isn't viable after the first trimester. I've had 2: one at 33

weeks of gestation (my first) and one at 24 weeks (my state prohibits termination at this point) and 3 days. The 33 weeker was very healthy for his gestational age, spent 2 weeks in the hospital (as opposed to the 5-7 we were warned about), had a monitor at home, nursing visits at home, etc., and he'll be 16 next month. My 24 week plus 3 days son died within a few minutes of his birth.

I met women who chose to terminate pregnancies during the second trimester because genetic tests had shown the fetus to be imcompatible with life. Decisions to deny medical treatment aren't easy, and preemies who have a good prognosis at birth (even after 32 weeks) can develop very serious complications that result in death.

Sorry if this seems heavy-handed for someone who has never asked the question before.

[rocktivity]

81. No you're not being heavy handed

I figured it had to have something to do with either the viability the fetus, the health of the mother, or some "magic number" the politicians came up with, like the drinking age!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Greybnk48]

6. That view this conservative pro-choice

because the restriction imposed after the first trimester is not based on medical science but religious beliefs. I think the time of an abortion is up to the woman, based on her beliefs.

[danalytical]

8. There is science behind it

A fetus can live on it's own in the second trimester. It's not easy and infant mortality is high. But it happens quite often anyways. Now, if you also throw in the fact that the fetus begins to be self aware and has a developed brain, then you have some science. An abortion during the third trimester is definitely unethical at best and arguably the intentional killing of a defenseless human being at worst. My sister in law gave birth 3 weeks early. The child was perfectly fine. She didn't even need any special care. That baby could probably have been born evenearlier without complications. So to say that a baby in lets say the 7th or 8th month isn't worthy of protecting by law is simply not right. That is a baby, not just a developing tissue mass anymore. That has NOTHING to do with religion. I am agnostic/atheist, but I am a compassionate ethical person that recognoizes the life in a 7 or 8 month old baby, heck even a 4-5 month old baby IMO.

[Common Sense Party]

82. Very well said. n/t

[gulliver]

22. It is beyond science and religion. It's more like a hockey rule...

Hockey rules are made to make the game better. There is no science involved in them. Only reasoning to achieve a goal of a better game. The same would be true if the "first trimester" rule were chosen arbitrarily as a standard. It doesn't need any scientific or religious justification. It merely has to achieve its goal of satisfying the wishes of as many people as possible while balancing their rights.

[Nederland]

36. An excellent example

Europe has done precisely this. Most countries in Europe have decided that abortion should be legal up till about the 12 week, with exceptions for the health of the mother. Sweden is at the far end, with abortion being legal till the 24 week, and France is at the low end with it being legal up until the 10 week. Unlike in the US, this was all achieved via the legislative process and the people who disagree have to either change their elected officials or just live with it.

[CTLawGuy]

7. I wouldn't go that far

I think that abortion should be legal until the fetus is "viable" (in theory, because I don't know exactly when it becomes viable.) Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court's last abortion case, said that a state could regulate abortion after "viability" but didn't say when that was. Casey overruled the Roe v. Wade rule of states allowed to ban abortion after the second trimester, restrict it during the second trimester, and no power to regulate during the first trimester.

Both cases have the constitutional requirement for an exception for the life and health of the morther.

I think 90% of abortions are done before the third trimester anyway, so I don't think this rule would be much of a problem.

[Nederland]

20. I'm not looking for an opinion on abortion

I was looking for an opinion on how you would categorize a person who held the described beliefs.

[Agnomen]

9. Language determines consciousness

and I have serious issues w. terminology "pro-life" & "pro-choice"
It's up to us progressives to reshape language, strip it of its euphemisms and obfuscations.
For heavens sake!
It's PRO-ABORTION
and ANTI-ABORTION
I refuse to use any other words for this issue.

[meow2u3]

16. Damn straight

Let's start calling a spade a spade. Enough of the weasel words and euphemisms!

[Pacifist Patriot]

25. I don't like your choices.

It's pro-choice or anti-choice. I fully support a woman's right to make personal medical decisions including abortion, but I wouldn't say I'm "pro-abortion." I'd prefer they be legal and rare. I'd like to eliminate the need for abortion in the first place. Abortion saddens me so I cannot fully back "pro-abortion." It's about allowing women freedom of choice. At least to me, so using "choice" would more accurately reflect my personal position on the issue.

[Agnomen]

76. The issue is abortion - not choices

if abortion is not one of those choices, the battle is over.

[BlueCaliDem]

87. With All due respect, I think you're oversimplifying this

complicated issue.

Though the issue is abortion, it is a matter of choice.

Some women choose to abort, some choose to carry the fetus through even if that means their health is in danger, or that the child would not survive--they usually leave it up to their god, and choose to accept whatever may come.

Some keep the fetus of, say, their father, or brother, or uncle; most choose to abort it, depending on what they feel is best for them.

I, for example, am against abortion (I have never had one though many have tried to get me to abort my first and third child) because we have so many contraceptives--the six-month contraceptive; the daily pill contraceptive, even a "morning-after" pill(which I've used TWICE in the 80's in Holland "just in case") that, except for medical reasons, should make abortion a thing of the past, but things aren't so simple in real life for most women.

However, I'm against any government; any entity thinking it's their right to demand a woman to make that choice in their favor even when she's against it, and am therefore pro-choice; pro-women's right to make that hard, difficult, painful choice on their own and with their loved ones, their doctor, their god.

Their choice. Therefore, I believe I am "pro-woman's choice" when it comes to government laws, but am anti-abortion in my own, personal life.

I guess that's where the distinction should be: understanding it's between allowing a woman to maintain her own, personal choices, or allowing government incroachment in making a woman's right to privacy an illegal act.

BTW, I don't think ANYBODY is "pro-abortion".

[Pacifist Patriot]

96. You said it better than I could. Thank you.

[SW FL Dem]

97. Sorry I disagree

I am pro-choice. I don't like abortions and probably wouldn't have one if I became pregnant. I do however, completely support the right of a woman to make her own choice whether to continue a pregnancy.

[Nobody]

98. No, it's pro and anti choice

The difference is who decides whether or not to end a pregnancy. The woman who is pregnant or some busybody.

Privacy enters into this because those who would want the whole world to react as they would to any crisis don't have the information they need to make an informed CHOICE for the complete stranger whose life they want to interfere with. The woman who is pregnant is not about to hand over her medical records, the police report from a rape, the pharmacy records, the credit card bills, not is she interested in allowing these complete strangers to paw through her underwear drawer to see how many birth control pills she has left. That complete stranger has no access to this and should not EVER have access to any of this.

A woman can ask advice from anyone she wants. If that someone isn't you, stay out of it.

[CTyankee]

10. you are forgetting that

altho the vast majority of abortions in this country occur in the 1st trimester, some do fall into the early 2nd trimester because some women are in deep denial and have had little sex ed or inaccurate sex ed and also because restrictive laws on minors cause delays. These are restrictions that CAUSE later than 1st trimester abortions, and the so called prolifers are at fault for their disastrous policies.

For this reason, I cannot vote in this poll.

If you want the latest stats on this you can go to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. I think their website is www.agi.org for information. AGI is the foremost authority (relied upon by state and local health departments all over the country)on reproductive health issues both in this country and abroad.

[Nederland]

19. I'm not forgetting anything

It's a poll. I'm just asking how you would categorize a person who wants abortion to be legal in the first trimester but illegal afterwards (with exceptions). I'm not saying anything about whether the said position is right or wrong.

[CTyankee]

29. My point is that in reality

because of restrictions causing delays there are abortions in the 12th, 13th or 14th weeks more commonly than say, 20 weeks, but the vast majority are in the first trimester. Having worked for both a local feminist health center that provided abortion and also for the state office of Planned Parenthood here in CT I can tell you you that the "bright line" was not just at the exact moment of the first trimester. I know what you are trying to get at with your poll but it didn't "fit" with my experience in real life situations.

[tnlefty]

68. And don't forget that a lot of genetic testing doesn't begin until week

14 (preliminary screen for neural tube defects). If that is abnormal it is repeated and an ultrasound will be done (possibly again) to use. If this is abnormal an amnio is performed (approx. 18 wks.), the results are returned, the mother or parents counseled, and a decision has to be made rather quickly. I've met women who seemed as though their trauma was increased by the small time frame they had to make a decision.

[Bridget Burke]

11. I'm pro-choice & the other person is anti-abortion.

None of your options fit.

Most of the tests that can find birth defects are done in the second trimester. But carrying & giving birth to a baby without a brain won't hurt the mother's health.

[demigoddess]

12. I kind of agree, Many severe birth defects are not detected til the

middle trimester or later. Many of those children you would not want to survive. So many people do not know about birth defects like this because we hide the knowlege. You know the best way to prevent teen pregnancy? Let them know how common birth defects really are.

[noonwitch]

13. Abortion is an all or nothing thing, legally speaking

You either support it in a legal sense, or you don't. To me it is about the rights of the living superceding the rights of the not yet living.
That doesn't mean that I think it is necessarily morally correct to abort a 2nd trimester, healthy fetus that poses no high risk to the mother to deliver it. I wouldn't, unless there were extreme circumstances. I just don't think it's the government's decision to make, because in the real world, extreme circumstances happen to people every day.

[Nederland]

15. Question

You said:

To me it is about the rights of the living superceding the rights of the not yet living.

You seem to be saying here that the fetus is not yet living. Are you stating this as a fact, or an opinion?

[catmother]

14. i have mixed emotions on this issue. i think it should be done in

the first trimester. as soon as the woman knows, she should do it. but years ago i had a friend who didn't know she was pregnant. she had an IUD and was getting her period. she had a tendency to gain and lose weight. she was shocked when she found out she was 4 months pregnant. she did have an abortion. she would have liked to have the child but the father was married with kids and had another girlfriend with kids. i was with her -- took her home and stayed with her until the boyfriend arrived.

fortunately a few years later she met a nice guy -- got married and had 2 children. she was close to 40 at this point.

[rucky]

17. I thought the first trimester caveat was a given.

except with the anti-choicers who like to twist things.

[xchrom]

18. at what point is a woman's body/life her own: the first trimester,

the second...?

it's not about the fetus -- it's about the woman and what she wants to do with her body/life.

[Nederland]

21. Disagree

It is about the fetus.

Everyone agrees that if a parent of a baby that is two days old fails to feed it and it dies, a crime has been committed. Everyone believes this because they believe that the fetus has rights, (among those the right to life), even if that right imposes a burden on the parents to provide materially for the child. Imagine if parents that abandoned a child to die went before the court and argued: "Hey, its MY life, what right does this child have to tell me how to live MY life?"

Think that argument would go over well?

The point is this, there is some point at which everyone agrees that the parents of a child have a responsibility to care for that child, regardless of whether or not they want to. This is not debatable. The debate is over when that point begins.

[CTyankee]

31. a two day old is a baby, not a fetus

except for the so called prolifers who call a fetus a baby from what they call "conception."

The argument over late term abortions is largely a scam. The idea that women just take it into their silly heads to have an abortion in the 8th or 9th month of pregnancy is absurd. These abortions are due to extremely serious circumstances. I think where things get sticky is the period of the pregnancy when couples find out they have a fetus with Down's Syndrome and decide to terminate, and I think that used to be in the 5th month but is now earlier. Or with the teenage girl who is in deep denial and either is forced to wait or just can't face up to it until say, the 20th week.

[Nederland]

38. Now you've reached the crux of the issue

a two day old is a baby, not a fetus

This opinion of yours is what makes you pro-choice. People that are pro-life believe that the fetus has rights, you don't. It's really just a matter of opinion, but it is an important opinion.

Think of it this way. In 1850 we had a large number of people (slave owners) that were of the opinion that black people had no rights but were in fact property. A slightly larger number of people (abolitionists) were of the opinion that black people had the same rights as white people. Now imagine what the response would be if the slave owners said to the abolitionists:

Hey, this is just a matter of opinion. You should just let people be guided by their individual consciences. If you think slavery is wrong, don't own any slaves...

Think that would go over well? Think it did go over well?

The whole idea that the "choice" argument will sway anyone is naive. It simply dismisses the moral opinions of a huge number of people as unimportant and will never work. Just to be clear, I believe that abortion should be legal. I just think that the arguments being made by the "pro-choice" crowd will never work because they do not address the key issue.

[CTyankee]

50. What is the meaning of "born"?

The Constitution of the United States refers to citizens as "born" in two places, as I understand it. One is the requirement President (must be born in the United States) and the other is, I think, in the 14th Amendment, again a "born" in the U.S. requirement.

The constitution of the United States has not addressed the issue of the unborn or the "preborn" as the prolifers like to say. It grants no privileges or rights to that group of citizens (if you want to think of them as that). Your so called "slavery" argument is a throwback to MANY antichoice arguments against abortion. So I doubt very seriously that you are, indeed, prochoice and so I wonder why you are bothering to post on Democratic Underground.

Your quest is fruitless here. Good luck on other websites, Nederland.

[Nederland]

61. Welcome to DU

Your argument concerning the word born is a good one. I would say that definitely works if you are trying to argue with people that believe that the US Constitution is the final word on everything and is completely infallible. I doubt, however, if the people in this country who disagree with you on this issue will be persuaded by this argument. The fact that the people who opposed slavery cared little for the fact that the pre-Civil War Constitution condoned slavery should give you a hint as to how effective this tactic will turn out to be. Which brings us to your dismissal of my slavery comparison as a "throwback". Not exactly a very powerful argument you have there, is it? Rather than actually address the issue, you just dismiss it as a "throwback"--as if the mere use of the word somehow wins debate points. Pretty amusing actually.

You did pretty well for a rookie though. The born thing was one I hadn't heard yet. Keep on trying and you might actually come up with something that might convince someone who disagrees with you.

[Nobody]

101. Are you legal to vote on the 18th anniversary of your conception?

How about walking into a bar 9 months prior to your 21st birthday and see how long it takes the bouncer to throw your underage butt out the door.

[ProudDad]

104. Human Being

trumps a foetus EVERY TIME!

[flpoljunkie]

23. Plannned Parenthood: # of abortions after 1st Trimester relatively small

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-abortion-first-trimestert.xml

The Number of Abortions after the First Trimester Is Relatively Small

Between 1996 and 2000, the number of abortions in the United States fell from 1.36 million to 1.31 million (Finer & Henshaw, 2003). The CDC estimates that 58 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.5 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2003).

Since the nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the proportion of abortions performed after the first trimester has decreased because of increased access to and knowledge about safe, legal abortion services (Gold, 2003).

Various Factors Require Women to Have Abortions after the First Trimester

Barriers to Service

Geographic A 2001 survey of U.S. abortion providers found that among women who have non-hospital abortions, approximately 16 percent travel 50 to 100 miles for services, and an additional eight percent travel more than 100 miles (Henshaw & Finer, 2003). It follows that having to travel such distances would cause delays in obtaining abortions.

Provider shortage As of 2000, 87 percent of U.S. counties have no known abortion provider; these counties are home to 34 percent of all women of reproductive age. Furthermore, 97 percent of non-metropolitan counties have no abortion services, and 91 percent of non-metropolitan women live in these unserved counties (Finer & Henshaw, 2003).

Financial In 1997, the average cost of a first-trimester, non-hospital abortion with local anesthesia was $319. In 2000 this cost was $372. For low-income and younger women, gathering the necessary funds for the procedure often causes delays. Compounding the problem is the fact that the cost of abortion rises with gestational age: in 2001, non-hospital facilities charged $774 for abortion at 16 weeks gestation and $1,179 at 20 weeks. Most women are forced to pay for abortions out-of-pocket. In 2000, only 13 percent of abortions were paid by Medicaid and another 13 percent were billed directly to private insurance. (Henshaw & Finer, 2003). For some women, the cost of abortion can pose significant barriers to access.

Legal restrictions Causing additional delays are state laws such as those mandating parental consent or notification or court-authorized bypass for minors and those imposing required waiting periods. For example, after Mississippi passed a parental consent requirement, the ratio of minors to adults obtaining abortions after 12 weeks increased by 19 percent (Henshaw, 1995).
Medical indications
Medical indications may lead to abortion after 12 weeks. Discovery of serious fetal anomalies, such as severe genetic disorders, or conditions in which the woman's health is threatened or aggravated by continuing her pregnancy include
certain types of infections

heart failure

malignant hypertension, including preeclampsia

out-of-control diabetes

serious renal disease

severe depression

suicidal tendencies

These symptoms may not occur until the second trimester, or may become worse as the pregnancy progresses (Cherry & Merkatz, 1991; Paul et al., 1999)

Other Reasons

Other Reasons for Postponing Abortion Past 12 Weeks

lack of financial and/or emotional support from the male partner

psychological denial of pregnancy, as may occur in cases of rape or incest

lack of pregnancy symptoms, seeming continuation of "periods," irregular menses

absence of partner due to estrangement or death (Paul et al., 1999)

Adolescents Often Delay Abortion Until after the First Trimester

Adolescents are more likely than older women to obtain abortions later in pregnancy. Adolescents obtain 30 percent of all abortions performed after the first trimester (CDC, 2003).

Among women under age 15, nearly one in four abortions are performed at 13 or more weeks' gestation (CDC, 2003).

The very youngest women, those under age 15, are more likely than others to obtain abortions at 21 or more week's gestation (CDC, 2003).

Common reasons why adolescents delay abortion until after the first trimester include fear of parents' reaction, denial of pregnancy, and prolonged fantasies that having a baby will result in a stable relationship with their partner (Paul et al., 1999). In addition, adolescents may have irregular periods (Friedman et al., 1998), making it difficult for them to detect pregnancy. Also, as previously noted, state laws requiring parental consent or court-authorized bypass for minors often cause delays.

more..good one to bookmark for reference

[flpoljunkie]

26. Answer: I'm pro-choice and that person needs to be educated.

[Nederland]

30. How did you vote?

Just curious...

[flpoljunkie]

33. Did not vote. My response is directly above your post.

[Nederland]

39. Why didn't you vote?

The poll wasn't asking you your opinion of abortion, it was merely asking whether you thought a person that held the described views was pro-life or pro-choice. Furthermore, the idea that anyone who disagrees with you must be "educated" is rather close minded...

[flpoljunkie]

48. Those who know nothing about abortions and why they occur after the

third trimester are "close minded" and they should educate themselves--altho not what I would consider pro-choice, they are going in the right direction and educable.

Here is the link regarding abortions after the third trimester:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-abortion-first-trimestert.xml

[xchrom]

49. i didn't vote either -- it's about the self determination

of one person.

the woman carrying the fetus.

it is not a ''baby'' -- it's a fetus.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Nederland]

62. My real agenda

...is to convince people that the current arguments made by people (like myself) in favor of abortion rights are ultimately fruitless because the language people use does not paint an accurate picture of how people view abortion. The terms people on this thread are using (pro-life/pro-choice, pro-choice/anti-choice, pro-abortion/anti-abortion, etc) all suffer from the same problem. They assume that there are only two positions on abortion. There are not--there are numerous positions on abortion and the continued use of the binary terminology alienates people that by all rights should be voting Democratic.

[Sparkly]

63. I don't see it that way.

"Pro-choice" vs. "Anti-choice" is binary, imho.

People hold all sorts of different opinions about when abortion is "okay" with them and when it's not, but to me, the issue is whether they seek to legislate their opinions. (In that sense, there's already quite a bit of anti-choice in state laws.)

Further, I don't agree that this is the problem in the debate. I think the problem is the term "pro-life" and of course, "pro-abortion" (let alone "baby murderers" etc.). People can indeed be pro-life and pro-choice -- even "anti-abortion" and pro-choice.

[Pacifist Patriot]

24. Depends on what you mean by "pro-life."

I use the terms "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" instead. I consider myself a proponent of life but support a woman's right to make personal and private medical decisions about her own body. So I would consider such a person to be pro-life but probably not in the way you used the term.

[Nederland]

32. Question

What would you call a person that believes that a woman has a right to do whatever she wants with her body, but also happens to to believe that after the first trimester there are two bodies involved, not just one? Is that person anti-choice?

[Pacifist Patriot]

35. Not necessarily. It depends upon what one does with that belief.

Does that belief mean the life of the fetus trumps the life of the mother? In my opinion, the fact that a woman is pregnant does not automatically diminish the importance of her life in favor of that of her unborn cihld.

I believe there are two lives involved at any point in a pregnancy, but to me it is about allowing the woman and her doctor the right to make decisions that are in the best interest of the woman's health. The controversy over D&X drove me crazy. It's an incredibly rare procedure, done under the most extreme circumstances and at physical, psychological, and emotional trauma to the parties involved. Politicians had no business being involved in a crisis medical decision.

Whenever an abortion occurs during gestation it is a difficult choice with consequences that must be weighed. I feel it is not my place to interfere in a woman's relationship with the father and her medical care providers.

[Nederland]

37. Answer

Does that belief mean the life of the fetus trumps the life of the mother? In my opinion, the fact that a woman is pregnant does not automatically diminish the importance of her life in favor of that of her unborn child.

No. The life of the mother is always considered more important. That is why there is an exception for the life and health of the mother.

[Pacifist Patriot]

53. Which is my point.

[Sparkly]

47. I don't think the terms apply to individual beliefs.

In my view, the terms refer to whether or not someone wants to legislate their own beliefs, and thus remove choice from others.

[Pacifist Patriot]

54. Precisely

[AtomicKitten]

27. I don't like it when people abort after the first trimester.

It just doesn't seem right. HOWEVER, it must remain legal.

[flpoljunkie]

34. I urge you to read post#26. You may change your position.

[AtomicKitten]

85. I have a different perspective.

I actually transcribe the surgery reports.

Still, abortions must remain legal and available, and both are key. The Republicans seem content that they remain legal because they are chipping away at the availability of abortions in every state with maneuvers such as unreasonable restrictions on facilities, etc.

In a perfect world, abortions would be legal, safe, available, and would only need to be infrequent. Women should be afforded access to full reproductive care and information.

[Nederland]

45. Most people don't

And this is, IMHO, a big problem for Democrats. There are a huge number of people (even within our own party) that believe that abortion after the first trimester is wrong. How people that hold this view are treated by the rest of the party is a key concern. If the party cannot embrace people that hold this "moderate" view on abortion it risks losing them.

[Sparkly]

56. I disagree that it's a "big problem for Democrats."

Afaik, there's no big push to eliminate restrictions on late-term abortions. We're fighting just to hang on to the rights that are in place now.

The issue, as I see it, is NOT what opinion individual people hold -- it's whether they believe that THEIR own opinions and beliefs should be imposed by law on others. That's what "pro-choice" vs. "anti-choice" is about.

[Nederland]

65. Question

Would you be willing to engage in a very brief Socratic dialogue?

[Sparkly]

67. Sure

I could try! :)

[Nederland]

69. Great

Just to be clear, here are the ground rules:

I'll ask you four yes/no questions. For every question, you need to give a yes or no answer. Feel free to explain yourself follow your answer, but give a straightforward yes or no answer. There is one exception to this rule. If I ask a question that contains an implicit assumption that is untrue, please point it out and I'll rephrase the question. For example, if I ask you "have you stopped beating your wife yet?", you could point out that this question implies 1) that you have a wife and 2) that you at some point were beating her. Fair enough?

Oh, turnabout is fair play. If you want to ask me four yes/no question feel free, just start in a different spot in the thread so the two don't get intermixed.


First question: Is murder immoral?

[Sparkly]

70. Okay, but here's the rub.

I don't think MY opinions on everything -- in yes's and no's -- are pertinent to the subject of choice (and, I'm not so sure I even want to state all of them). So even if I said it's my personal belief that abortion is murder, that doesn't necessarily mean I believe my view should be legislated -- in the same sense that if I thought everybody was going to Hell if they didn't go to my church, I'd necessarily advocate legislation that required them to go to my church.

But having said that, I'll play.

First answer: Yes, in MY view, murder is immoral. But not everyone in this country agrees on what constitutes "murder." People generally agree that intentional, premeditated killing of another sentient person (in the absence of insanity or self-defense) is murder, and there's no hot political debate on that, or advocacy of a change in the law. But in other cases -- when there are questions of what constitutes life (Terri Schiavo), when the person is put to death by the government, when the person is "collatoral damage" in a war -- there is controversy about what constitutes "murder."

[Nederland]

74. Good

I'll go with your strict definition: intentional, premeditated killing of another sentient person is immoral in your opinion.


Second Question: Should we have laws prohibiting murder?

[Sparkly]

75. Hm..

I was making an attempt to define the NON-controversial definition of murder -- about which I also said, "there's no hot political debate on that, or advocacy of a change in the law." Don't leave that part out!

Yes, we should have laws prohibiting murder of the kind I'd dare say 99.9% of Americans agree upon.

[Nederland]

77. Good

I like the 99.9% number. Using that number, answer this:

Question Three: Should we only pass laws that a large majority of the population agrees with?

[Sparkly]

78. I thought you might say that.

No. But laws that a large majority of the population agree with may reflect common beliefs. There are definitions of "life" and of "murder" that 99.9% of may agree with, and there's no debate or advocacy to change those laws.

However, there are other questions of "life" and "murder" where there are NOT such common beliefs -- but rather personal feelings, opinions, religious beliefs, etc., in large splits. When the Constitution and Bill of Rights make no prohibition or are silent, and the state has no overriding "interest" in the matter, the government should not have moral authority to impose any ONE belief on all.

[Nederland]

80. Last one

You said that the government should not have moral authority to impose any ONE belief on all. In 1865 the government passed the 13th amendment banning slavery, an action that a significant majority opposed. So...

Question Four: Did the government have the right to impose the belief that slavery was wrong on all?

[Sparkly]

84. Good one.

You didn't cite everything I said, though. I said, "When the Constitution and Bill of Rights make no prohibition or are silent, and the state has no overriding "interest" in the matter, the government should not have moral authority to impose any ONE belief on all."

So yes, the government had the right to abolish slavery, for at LEAST three reasons:

1. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were NOT silent on the issue of equality. On the contrary, the prohibitions to slavery, and the statements of equality (for men, at least) seem pretty clear.

2. I'd also question your statement that there was a "significant majority opposed" to abolition -- who were counted among that "significant majority?"

3. As I described earlier, where there is a large split that rests on personal feelings, opinions, or religious beliefs, the government shouldn't have moral authority to impose any one belief on all. There was never a question that slaves were sentient beings, independent of anything outside themselves for their state of being alive. The question was whether they deserved a choice of living as slaves, or not.

Their emancipation could be seen two ways: the enslavers lost their "freedom" to abuse others under the law; or, people enslaved by the law won their freedom to make their own choices.

[Nederland]

88. I'm out of questions, so I'll just respond

1a) Yes, the Constitution was not silent on the issue of equality. It specifically stated that slaves were not equal to free men, but rather were only worth 3/5 of a free person.

1b) As to whether or not the state has no overriding "interest" in the matter, who determines this? The courts? The majority? What do you do when there is significant disagreement over whether or not there is an overriding "interest"? Doesn't this question merely return us to the original problem of how to decide an issue when there is no consensus?

2) The significant minority would be a significant minority regardless of who you counted--even if you included slaves.

3) Yes, the question of slavery was whether they deserved a choice of living as slaves, or not. The question of abortion is whether or not the fetus deserves the choice of living or not. The two situations are identical: they both involve a disagreement over what rights a certain group should have. The argument over slavery involved whether or not a black person has rights. The argument over abortion involves whether or not the fetus has rights. Some people believed that black people were not persons, some people believe fetuses are not people. The parallels are everywhere.

Perhaps I should present how I argue with pro-life people. I dispense with the whole "choice" idea and meet pro-lifers on their own ground. They are always talking about how the fetus deserves rights because its a living human being. I let them talk about this for a while and naturally, they concentrate their argument on the later stages of pregnancy where their argument is strongest. They talk about how a late term baby has respiration, heart beats and brain waves. They ask why the fetus at this stage should not be considered a human being with rights. I let them blather on for a while and then concede the argument for the third trimester and flip the question back around. Why, I ask them, if respiration, heart beats and brain waves are so important, should a fetus at the moment of conception be considered human? Why should I consider something that has no brain, no lungs, and no heart human?

Believe me, if you set it up right, its rather effective.

[Sparkly]

93. Response to your response.

Yes, the question of slavery was whether they deserved a choice of living as slaves, or not. The question of abortion is whether or not the fetus deserves the choice of living or not. The two situations are identical: they both involve a disagreement over what rights a certain group should have.

I don't think they are identical. Key to my view is what I said above: "There was never a question that slaves were sentient beings, independent of anything outside themselves for their state of being alive. The question was whether they deserved a choice of living as slaves, or not." There IS a question of whether a fetus is a "sentient being, independent of anything outside themselves for their state of being alive." In the view of MANY people, this is not a "group," but a personal condition of a woman's body over which SHE alone has dominion. There are no separate "rights" for a fetus. Women are not incubators for US citizens, and the government should have no dominion over a woman's uterus.

The argument over slavery involved whether or not a black person has rights. The argument over abortion involves whether or not the fetus has rights.

I agree there is an argument afoot that a fetus has "rights" -- and that, in my view, is very dangerous to women. Again, by the 99.9% accepted definition of "life," a person who is separate, sentient, and independent is "alive." An active black person, then, was obviously "alive" and a person -- so the question was simply one of RIGHTS. This is far different. This question concerns whether a fetus, in some stage of development within a woman's body, has "rights" by government authority that supercede HER own rights to her own body. There is NO comparison, in my view.

Some people believed that black people were not persons, some people believe fetuses are not people. The parallels are everywhere.

I don't see these as parallels. People who believed black people were "not persons" obviously saw them as "alive people" -- they bought and sold them, they used them for their physical abilities, they realized they were capable, useful, active, strong, etc... Fetuses are simply NOT the same -- and it seems to me that drawing such a "parallel" requires reaching to the far ends of the abstract. Black people lived, worked, walked around on their own -- there is no question, certainly now, that these were sentient beings with their own physical independence and rights. Black people -- or any people -- are quite separate from a woman's womb.

Your argument with anti-choice (not "pro-life") people still deals with opinions -- whether 'scientific' or other -- about when the life of a citizen deserving rights begins. That's still a debate with plenty of room for diversity of opinion. But MY point is: since there is no clear, known, accepted answer, the government has no business enforcing ANY one view.

(They sometimes have to be reminded that nobody is forcing anyone to have an abortion, and that the key to stemming abortions is to stem unwanted pregnancies. I urge them to support local women's health clinics that provide birth control, and to support sex ed, etc.)

Here's my own tip in debating with such anti-choicers: there's often a breakdown of logic when it comes to the "innocent unborn life." I can understand (although I disagree with) people who truly believe that abortion is murder, no matter what. These people will say that life begins at conception, period -- and even if it doesn't, we should err on the side of moral virtue and outlaw all abortion. That's an understandable view, even if it's wrong.

But scratch the surface: What if the woman was raped? What if she was 12 years old and knew nothing about sex or contraception? What if it was a 'moral,' married couple and the contraception failed? What if she was "mentally retarded?" What if it was incest? They'll start making exceptions.

Scratch a little further, and you'll soon hear that it's just about "women who spread their legs," "women who use abortion as birth control," and other variations of wanton, slutty, despicable women who DESERVE to have babies because they're so immoral, and don't DESERVE abortions unless there's some extenuating circumstance about the SEX that caused their pregnancy. In the opinion of these arbitors of virtue, these voyeurs of the vagina, it's all about their own judgments of women's guilt or innocence in sexual behavior.

It's soon apparent that it has NOTHING to do with the "innocent life" -- it has EVERYTHING to do with the innocence or guilt of the WOMAN.

[liberal43110]

105. Thank you

And I noticed that Nederland didn't respond..

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

28. I don't use "prolife" - too dishonest of a term. "Anti-abortionists"

is what I prefer to use. Or perhaps "anti-abortionist terrorist nazi fear brigade."

No way could I use the term "prolife" for someone who is "against abortion, but/and or <insert nitpickity lil' qualifiers he
Anyone who wants to regulate my body with THEIR personal lil' opinions?! They are at best, simply anti-abortion.

At worst, anti-abortionist nazi. No way will I say "prolife" - forget it. The term "prolife" has now forever been tainted by the hateful, hypocritical and hysterical antiabortion brigade. The word has been abused by them for too long.

[Nederland]

41. Ok

Substitutute your preferred word and answer: Is a person that believes abortion should be legal in the first trimester but illegal afterwards (with exceptions) anti-abortionist?

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

60. Yes, anyone who wants to criminalize whatever type/flavor/etc of abortion

is anti-abortion.

Such as "Oh, I'm pro-choice, but I don't think women should be allowed more than 1 or two abortions and then it's illegal"
(Or any other retarded qualifier/excuse, like 'oh but after week <fill in blank> it should be illegal')

Soooo.... I say that individual is anti-abortion if they are supporting criminalization of abortion (whatever trimester.)

It's not really 'pro-choice' when actually supporting making the procedure illegal again - it seems so glaringly obvious.
(Unless, by 'pro-choice', one really means 'subversively choosing to undermine a woman's right to choose'.)

:)

[Nederland]

66. Fair enough

Why do you think that the vast majority of people that answered the poll consider a person who holds the described position to be pro-choice"?

[wiley]

40. What if the baby is deformed or dying in the fifth month?

Abortion would be illegal?

[Nederland]

42. Why does it matter?

The poll is not asking you to agree or disagree with the position, its asking you whether you consider a person with said views to be pro-choice or pro-life.

[wiley]

43. The person is an anti-abortionist.

[Nederland]

44. They are?

A person that believes that the tens of millions of first term abortions that occur in this country every year should remain perfectly legal is an "anti-abortionist"?

Seems like an odd conclusion to make...

[CTyankee]

52. Yessir! Why are you here on DU?

If this is an odd conclusion to make, why are you bothering to post here? There are other places that you would find much more accommodating. Go away.

[wiley]

73. They oppose second trimester abortions

[Nederland]

79. Yes they do

...but they favor keeping legal 98% of all the abortions performed.

Why do you insist on labeling someone who agrees with you 98% of the time in the same manner as someone that disagrees with you 100% of the time?

Do you see what you are doing now? You are applying a strict litmus test that alienates numerous people that are your natural allies. Do you think that a person who believes that abortion should be banned after the first trimester (with exceptions for the health of the mother) enjoys having you lump them in with the fundamentalist wackos that want to ban all abortions? Do you think those people look at your dogmatic rejection of all that disagree with you any differently than they do the Christian fundamentalists?

Do you get it now?

[wiley]

89. Calm Down

It would be illegal for a woman after the first semester to abort an already dead or gravely ill fetus? It should just rot until it falls out naturally. You think about it. People who believe that abortion should be banned after the first trimester would make this exception if they were truly pro-abortion. It's an arbitrary, meaninigless line to draw for first trimester support with exceptions for the mother's health and not recognize that fetuses can die or become ill during the second trimester. Get a grip on the scope of your own world.

[Nederland]

91. I give up

You just don't understand the politics of this. The Democratic party is losing elections in lots of places because of their dogmatic position on abortion. Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton are right, the party needs to rethink our position on abortion. It's a shame people like you don't understand why.

[dsc]

100. actually the hypothetical makes it pretty clear that

there would be a health exception so in addition to being shrill you simply didn't even bother reading the OP.

[wiley]

107. Show me the words that say that.

Are you assuming that the law would provide the option of an abortion based on "the mother's life is in danger"? Yeah, I trust legislators to make that exception.

What is this "shrill" sh*t?

[CTyankee]

51. HELLO, THIS IS A SET UP!!

Excuse me, but I am feeling this whole thread is not right. Does anyone else feel this way?

[Pacifist Patriot]

55. I feel that way any time an abortion discussion is begun.

Consider me gunshy.

[CTyankee]

Don't blame you

Please see Nederland's revealing posts on this thread!

[omega minimo]

72. Ya mean startin with the false choices?

:smoke:

[wiley]

108. Yeah. We been had.

[Sparkly]

46. The term "pro-life" complicates the question for me.

I know you may have reasons for using terminology that's become common in discussing this issue, but to me, "anti-choice" makes more sense.

[CornField]

58. That person is anti-choice

[JerseygirlCT]

59. I'm pro-choice, and I don't think being "pro-life" has anything to

do with abortion.

I reject that name entirely when referring to those opposed to abortion rights.

I also reject limiting 2nd trimester abortions at this point.

If every single woman had available excellent health care and money was no object, then I suppose we could talk about that. Maybe.

As it is, it's her body, it's her choice. Period.

[omega minimo]

71. Criminalizng private health options = Anti-Woman, Anti-Family, Anti-Choice

and Anti-Life.


"Other"

:kick:

[REP]

83. No Option for "Ill-Informed Asshole"

All pregnancies pose a heath risk to the woman (not "mother" unless she already has a child/children). Every. Single. Pregnancy.

[Nederland]

90. You are right

All pregnancies pose a heath risk to the woman (not "mother" unless she already has a child/children). Every. Single. Pregnancy.

The question is, do you have a right to terminate everyone that poses a risk to your health, regardless of how small that risk is? The Supreme Court already answered this question in Roe vs. Wade. It said that both the women and the fetus have rights, and that the rights of the fetus increase the closer it gets to full term. IOW, by the third term you need to demonstrate a very serious risk to the mother health in order to justify terminating the fetus. This is precisely the view I present in the OP.

[ima_sinnic]

92. I would call that person a control freak

as noted above, the unborn do not have "rights," and it is simply not the fate of every egg + sperm combination to come to fruition. Those spirits will be born when it is their time. The decision to abort is between a woman and a doctor, for myriad reasons, and is nobody else's business.

[danalytical]

95. control freak?

No the fictional person has a logical position. If you think a fetus at 8 1/2 months is OK to be aborted, then you oviously have no compassion for human life at all. There is a living human being in there, it is not just a sperm egg combination anymore. Within the first couple of months that argument has merit, and is one I agree with. But once you get to the point where a baby can be removed and live and grow normally on it's own, then there is a major difference. A control freak you say? Have you ever seen an 8 1/2 month old baby? How about a 7 1/2 month old baby? I suggest you go to the hospital and let one stare you in the face. Then rationalize with yourself that it's ok to kill that baby.

[fortyfeetunder]

94. I can't vote on this

I don't think it's my business how a woman should decide how and when to terminate a pregnancy. It's up to her and her medical professional.

[Nobody]

99. Someone who plans to use a lot of delaying tactics

And then turn around and tell the woman that it's too late, she's now in Month #4 and she can't abort.

Look around, these delaying tactics are already here. 24 hour waiting period anybody?

[CTyankee]

102. Well, Nederland, I'm not sure you got what you wanted

ab the end ofthis post. But I think you got some really good information about how we feel here about abortion rights.

HOpe you are just dandy keen with that!

[ProudDad]

103. You don't have the RIGHT answer in your poll

I'm Pro-Choice and that person has NO FUCKING BUSINESS telling ANY WOMAN WHAT TO DO WITH HER OWN WOMB!!!!

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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