Is a Woman's Right to Choose Absolute and Unconditional?

[Le Taz Hot]

As a pro-choice woman, I say yes it is. It is either a woman's choice as to if/when/how many children she chooses to have or it's not. It's one of the few areas in life that truly is black and white.

Let me offer an example: I know a woman who has had 9 children with 8 different fathers. She's a crack addict and so is the last baby daddy. The fate of these children have been nothing less than horrendous. Do I have an opinion as to whether or not she should have had 9 children? Yes. Should my opinion affect whether or not she has dominion over her own reproductive organs? No.

May I just say that I'm amazed that I'm actually having to argue this on a so-called "liberal" board.

[Brickbat]

1. Agreed 100 percent.

People can have all the opinions and make all the judgments they want, but it's still her choice.

[hamsterjill]

2. Yes.

n/t

[Tansy_Gold]

3. Yes.

My opposition to the death penalty is just as absolute as my defense of a woman's inalienable right to choose.

[left coaster]

4. YES, YES, YES, on all points you brought up, Le Taz! nt

[City Lights]

5. Yes.

I don't agree with the Duggar's choice, but it's theirs to make.

Typo edit.

[Autumn]

6. Yes. Not even debatable.n/t

[MuseRider]

7. Absolute. Yes it is her choice. n/t

[ceile]

8. Absolutely n/t

[MineralMan]

9. Yup. Her choice. People have rights, even to make stupid choices.

[no_hypocrisy]

10. Yes.

[haikugal]

11. Yes, it is.

[backtoblue]

12. A woman's body is not a political battlefield.

We should have absolute control over our own body and that includes the choice to have children or to not.

So yes, absolute and unconditional.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

13. What you posted makes perfect sense to me.

Why would anybody argue with that logic. Repucks do not count.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

14. Any regulation opens things up for more regulation IMHO

The only "regulations" regarding abortions that I believe in are ensuring that the facilities that they are performed in are sanitary and otherwise appropriate for the procedure, as well as ensuring that the doctors performing them are suitably trained and licensed. Anything else is just inviting inappropriate and arbitrary rules and restrictions IMHO.

[WCGreen]

15. Absolutely.

n/t

[ZombieHorde]

16. I think all non-cosmetic medical procedures should be a right.

So yes, I think abortion should be a right.

[Romulox]

17. Legally, it is not. This is a fact. Perhaps you are asking "should it be unconditional"?

:shrug:

[Mz Pip]

19. This is true

Roe v Wade did not give women an "unconditional" right to abortion.

[redqueen]

23. +1

[locahungaria]

18. Yes, agree 100%. n/t

[closeupready]

20. On what level? If she is involved with the man who made her pregnant, she is obligated

to involve him in what is ultimately her decision. It's his baby, too.

[Scout]

25. why should she? what if she knows he will try to force her to have it, and she wants

an abortion? why should she tell him?

[closeupready]

26. A baby would be his financial responsibility. And also, he may want the child.

Your "what if's" are a separate issue.

[Scout]

49. tough shit for him if he wants the fetus carried to term....

then he needs to find a woman who WANTS to squeeze one out for him.

my what ifs ARE the issue. she is not obligated to discuss one god damn thing with him if she does not want to do so...

and a baby would NOT be his sole financial responsibility ... and what if he DOESN'T want to pay? then can he tell her she must abort? hmmmmmm?

[redqueen]

58. Until science finds a way to allow men to carry a fetus to term,

then sadly they will have to simply rely on building solid relationships with women they can communicate with about these things.

[closeupready]

84. selfdelete

nt

[Donnachaidh]

83. their what ifs are as valid as the what ifs you state. n/t

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Avalux]

34. Why is she obligated to inform him??

SHE will go through the pregnancy and the birth and will, as the mother, have the primary responsibility of raising the child.

Whatever she decides is up to her, and that includes informing the man who impregnated her.

[closeupready]

39. You don't have sexual intercourse with a spouse and not involve them in such matters.

nt

[Avalux]

43. Why not?

What if a woman's spouse forced unprotected sex on her because he wants a child, but she doesn't?

And - is she also obligated to inform him if she chooses to take birth control to prevent pregnancy?

[closeupready]

47. That's not how a marriage works.

nt

[Scout]

52. how naive of you

what if they aren't married? what if it was a one night stand?

what if they are married and he (or she) are just selfish, inconsiderate, abusive asshole?

[closeupready]

81. Right, because you have been married for how long...?

nt

[Scout]

97. just had our 10th anniversary ... and we lived together for almost 5 years

prior to that.

:rofl:

[Scout]

101. oh yeah ... just what point did you think you were trying to make?? n/t

[Avalux]

76. Unfortunately, that's how a lot of them work. You didn't answer my questions. n/t

[closeupready]

80. I'm not interested in answering your bullshit strawman questions.

nt

[Avalux]

103. My questions are reality based. n/t

[lapislzi]

88. If that's the case, then it's not much of a marriage.

See my post below. It happens.

[closeupready]

90. What 'happens'?

Women in healthy marriages get abortions without involving their husbands in that decision?

[closeupready]

93. Oh, okay, I agree - I responded before I read your post below.

I thought (initially) that you were being sarcastic.

[EFerrari]

66. Nope. Its her pregnancy, not his. nt

[lapislzi]

87. I'm really conflicted about this.

It happened to a friend of mine, before I knew him. His then-wife became pregnant and had an abortion and only informed him after the fact. He was devastated and divorced her over it.

I would be the first to argue that the incident was far more about their non-viable marriage than their non-viable fetus...but, what were his rights, if any, as a husband and potential father in the situation?

While legally the wife had the right to do what she did, I think it was cruel and ethically questionable. He was right to divorce her. Nor could he force her to carry a pregnancy to term, regardless of his wishes.

Let me be clear: I'm not talking about rape. Rapists have no rights to paternity. But what obligations do people in relationships have to one another? And does the degree of relationship matter? Do married people bear more responsibility than people who've engaged in casual sex?

While I believe the right of the woman to terminate a pregnancy at any time, for any reason, should be absolute, what are the moral implications for partners?

[closeupready]

92. Thank you. I'm sure many here will say, "anecdotes mean nothing"

after they've asked for a specific example where it actually happened.

Your example is precisely what I had in mind. Legally, she can do it.

Is it ethical or does it respect the union that a marriage represents? Absolutely not.

Thanks again.

[laundry_queen]

108. Unfortunately the person you think you married is not

always the actual person you married.

The woman that tells her husband she's on the pill but isn't and gets pregnant.

The man that coerces his wife by getting her drunk and having unprotected sex to get her pregnant so she can't leave.

The woman that tells her husband she wants nothing more than to have children with him and pretends to 'try' while being on the pill the whole time.

The man or woman that leads a double life that their spouse knows nothing about.

And your example of a woman getting an abortion without informing her spouse.

It sucks. Shit happens in relationships and unfortunately it's usually the moral, honest, loving person that gets burned and has their life destroyed (BTDT). Your best defense is to read books about how to recognize a liar, read books about narcissists and sociopaths/psychopaths and how to spot them, and to listen to your friends when they tell you someone you are dating is an asshole.

Also, I don't think that limiting a woman's right to choose will fix the above issues. It is still her body and she is the one who has to put her life on the line and that is why it should always be her choice, and only hers. I've been through 4 pregnancies and it seriously destroyed everything about my body. I can't imagine being forced to go through that if you aren't 100% committed to it. That would be akin to torture in my book.

[closeupready]

116. I agree with you. Keep in mind we weren't asked whether it should or should not be legal. I

I was offering basically the same opinion as you. People want to use strategies employed in defense of making abortion legal in order to defend the rightness of a woman unilaterally making this decision without consultation with the man who is the biological father. There are situations where it would be pathological to do so. Yet, it's as if the OP demands that we approve of the woman having the abortion when the circumstances are as the other member described as happening in real life.

Peace to you. :hi:

[ehrnst]

132. Valid points. However, the welfare of the child needs to be involved in any discussion

in "rights" of the biological parents.

A distinction needs to be made between parenthood and childbearing in these discussions - and taking rights or responsibilities away from one of those to make the other "more fair" doesn't work morally.

Childbearing is not equal in the effect that it has on the two parents involved, and never will be. I don't know how one makes it 'fair' for all involved in terms of responsibility.

But I will put the needs of the child first in any of those discussions.

[lapislzi]

135. When one partner wants to be a parent and the other does not

This is an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. As the "bearing" precedes the actual "parenthood," the choice ultimately resides with the "bearer." Those who wish not to be parents bear the responsibility of ensuring that pregnancy does not occur.

In a perfect world, adults would candidly discuss parenthood before anyone commits a life-altering act.

[ehrnst]

154. However, no one is forced to be a parent. Paying child support does not = parenting.

However, childbearing = childbearing, and that's all on the woman, therefore she has the final say on whether or not that happens.

Child support and parenting decisions proceed from there.

In a perfect world, conception would not occur unless both parties intended it to.

[Marrah_G]

125. No she is not obligated to involve him

[a_post_8]

128. it's their baby too????

Fine - she can take it out - give it to him - and have him incubate it, have his pelvic bone dissolve, permanently make him incontinent, permanently change his physical pelvic structure, herniate his low-back disks, fill up and permanently stretch his breast tissue, have people walk up to him and feel its just fine to touch his pregnant body, put up with waiters refusing to serve you that glass of white wine or peanut-butter sandwich, risk potentially life-threatening complications, tear the skin in his most intimate area, go through mind-bending pain, be physically responsible for the infant breast-feeding and care of the infant - OH - AND give up the sexist career advantage of being male (as opposed to the working-mother-not-as-dedicated-to-career-narrative)... Have at it boys, grow a uterus - we'll hand it off...

[hifiguy]

21. I agree with you completely.

It really is that simple.

[sinkingfeeling]

22. I agree. There's a huge difference between having an opinion/belief and making it a law. Something

the GOP and RWers don't seem to be able to comprehend.

[Ship of Fools]

24. Agreed 110%.

[The Straight Story]

27. If a woman has a child that man does not want, can he abort his financial obligation?

And before someone says 'he should have kept it in is his pants' one could say she could have said no too.

So if it's her body, her choice, does he have the same choice to not have to work 18 years to support a child he did not want?

[closeupready]

29. Amen to that.

nt

[redqueen]

36. No.

He has the choice not to risk creating a child, just as she does. He can neither force her to abort, nor decide to deny his obligation to the child.

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. And if she went off the pill without telling him, in a deliberate attempt to

get pregnant without his consent?

[Scout]

53. if he is that worried about unwanted pregnancy, he should get a vasectomy....

or be more careful about who he fucks ... you know, only do it with a woman you know, who is trustworthy.

[RaleighNCDUer]

61. So her deliberately misleading him is a valid option for her.

You know, don't you, that for the vast majority of the population the purpose of fucking is NOT to make babies.

Have you never had anyone lie to you? Have you never thought someone 'trustworthy' and then found out differently? Do you approach every relationship with fear and paranoia?

[Scout]

70. did i say that? no i did not.

and yes, i approach any potential sexual relationship with a little fear and a little paranoia ... it's called reasonable caution. and if i DIDN'T do that, then when something "bad" happened to me, as a woman i would be blamed ... "why did you trust him?" "didn't you know he was a liar?" "why don't you just leave if he beats you?"


and if the vast majority of the population doesn't know that, whether they want to make babies or not, there is always the possibility that it will happen. even when a woman has her tubes tied, there is still a 1 in 300 chance she will get pregnant.

yes, i have had people lie to me. that is why i'm careful of who i have sex with for fuck's sake. fucking duh.

[redqueen]

56. Well I know that no man would ever think of such an amazingly

unheard of plot, because when has that happened, like, ever... but perhaps it isn't so unreasonable to expect people to understand that depending on one form of BC is no way a guarantee.

[treestar]

161. +1

As there are disadvantages to being a woman, there are a few to being a man.

[Marrah_G]

126. Nope

Her body, her choice. He had options to not create a child.

[jeff47]

142. Nope. And it isn't fair.

But the location of the relevant equipment means she gets her way.

[hlthe2b]

28. I am as Pro-Choice as they come...

but if the woman were HIV-positive and refused to take anti-viral drugs and/or other steps to prevent transmission to her child in-utero or otherwise continually put her children at risk, her rights to reproduction would very likely result in legal interventions to protect her children. Where the balance between her rights and the rights of the child should lie is a very difficult ethical decision and one that courts often mangle and which can be cringe-inducing. Certainly, once the fetus has matured to be viable outside the uterus and thus no longer legally aborted, all bets are off. These are grey areas that make your suggestion that her right to choose to be unconditional to be at least legally inaccurate. Do I wish women could be left alone to make all decisions relative to their reproduction unhindered? Yes. But, I do have to admit that there are circumstances that render some women unable to make these decisions without risking harm to themselves or others. Mental illness is but one example. Certainly I regret that the courts or government or any other group would ever get involved. But it is hard to argue that it is NEVER necessary.

[RT Atlanta]

30. Yes, as a husband & father of daughters

Yes and yes again.

[bemildred]

31. Yes. nt

[WolverineDG]

32. Yes it is

and I find it hypocritical when I come to DU & find posts labelling women as being "brainwashed" for making choices that aren't "correct," such as Mrs. Duggar and Mrs. Tebow.

dg

[SomethingFishy]

159. Hypocritical? I'm one of those that calls her brainwashed...

And here's why. I have asked every Mom I know, and I cannot find one that didn't laugh in my face when I asked if they would willingly spend 15 straight years pregnant. Not a single one that didn't LAUGH IN MY FACE. No woman wants to be pregnant for 15 straight years. None.. not a one.

And my other point would be that she had problems with the last pregnancy and her doctors warned her that anymore would be dangerous for her and the baby. Now if you have 19 kids and the next one could kill you or hurt the baby would you do it? Not if you were fucking SANE.

[coalition_unwilling]

33. Until the fetus is viable outside the womb, yes. After viability exists, I believe

the courts apply a different standard, but I'm at pains to describe or analyze it.

[karynnj]

35. Mostly, but not absolutely - but there really are few real instances that

would be eliminated. Roe vs Wade already tried to balance the woman's and fetus' rights. I don't think that it is right for a woman who is healthy and 8 months pregnant, with a healthy, viable baby to have an abortion - but this is something that really doesn't happen - and it likely would be impossible to find a doctor to perform one. (In fact, it is used to argue against late term abortions where the mother's health or life is threatened or the baby is not viable.)

[easttexaslefty]

37. Yes. n/t

[Magoo48]

38. Yes, her body her choice...

[Xithras]

40. Yes, but...

...society does have a right to encourage women to pursue other alternatives. I would have no problem, for example, if the government offered a $5,000 award to any woman with four children who wanted to obtain a free tubal ligation. I would vigorously oppose any attempt to force one on a woman, but I would love to see some kind of rewards system put into place that would encourage people to make reproductively smart choices.

Use the carrot, not the stick.

[kestrel91316]

41. Yes. Anything else is virtual reproductive slavery.

[zazen]

42. I'll be today's DU punching bag and say "no"

This thread needs _someone_ to beat up on, right?

A crack addict with that track record should be on Depo-Provera if the state's had to take over care of her other children because of her addiction. Because she's obligating the state to millions in care, and her children may be permanently disabled. Does she have an absolute right to make their life hell?

We cannot realistically provide a social safety net to our citizens--and God knows we need as a society to provide health care and even a basic income as a fundamental right instead of this fucked up capitalistic system we have now--if some are going to fuck up child after child after child.

I know plenty of liberals who work in child protective services who feel the same way. And they're not eugenicists, so flamers can desist.

I care too much about mentally and physically disabled children who've been made that way by drug abusing mothers. I'm sick and goddamned tired of ideological purity winning out over the rights of children.

I'd like to have more babies, but I can't afford them. I make that sacrifice because I have an obligation to society to raise my few children with the resources I have, and try my damnedest to raise contributing citizens that make the world a better place. That's my obligation, to try to give back because of what society has given me. A crack addict with nine children can make the same sacrifice.

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. Should a woman who is 8 1/2 month pregnant with a healthy pregnancy be allowed to abort?

[Scout]

55. stupid fucking strawman....

show me ONE case where a woman decided suddenly after 8.5 months that she does not want a healthy fetus delivered.

PROVE THAT YOUR STRAWMAN EVER FUCKING HAPPENS.

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. Your reaction suggests that you think this should be a condition.

a) would it be wrong?
b) should she be denied that choice?

[Scout]

72. no it would not be wrong.

no she should not be denied that choice.

i feel very comfortable saying this because, unlike some on this board, i TRUST women.

[closeupready]

78. This response speaks volumes.

:puke:

[Scout]

99. yup, it says loud and clear that i TRUST WOMEN to make the best decisions

for themselves!

apparently you don't :puke: right back atcha LOL

[redqueen]

59. In fairness that's exactly the kind of question that the OP, written as it is,

practically invites.

[Le Taz Hot]

65. Nope, the question has been stated over and over and over

again. Abortion has nothing to do with her fundamental right to choose. Once again, extraneous.

[redqueen]

71. "Right to Choose" implies it.

Whether you meant to imply it or not, it's a loaded term.

[Freddie Stubbs]

63. I never stated if it ever happened. I only asked if it would be allowed under the "Absolute Right to

Choose."

If this is something that NEVER happens, why would any object to banning it?

[Scout]

73. since it never happens, why do you need to ban it? n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

74. Can anyone prove that it NEVER happens?

[Scout]

77. well since one can't prove a negative, i guess it's on YOU to prove it does n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

95. If it NEVER happens, what is the harm in banning it?

[Scout]

98. oh because our government doesn't have anthing to spend their time and money

on besides interfering with a woman's uterus.

let's think of lots of other ways to waste time and money!!!

[Freddie Stubbs]

102. How much money would it cost to ban a procedure which never happens?

[noiretextatique]

105. it costs money to ban late term abortions

in ohio for example:
Doctors would be required to test for viability when a woman is 20 weeks’ pregnant or more

the money would be better spent on sex education. of course the anti-women crowd don't like sex education either.

[Freddie Stubbs]

139. Why would you have to test the viability of an 8.5 month pregnancy?

[jeff47]

134. Because it opens the door.

First, the reasonable "8-1/2 months" restriction comes in. Then 3rd trimester. Then "viability", which gets gradually pushed further and further back. Eventually, we're at the point where abortion is only legal when it's so early in the pregnancy that most women don't know they're pregnant.

[Occupy_2012]

113. Nothing *never* happens.

I noticed the question was about a healthy pregnancy, not a healthy mother. Why on earth would a woman want to have an abortion at 8 1/2 months in the first place, if everything was fine? An 8 1/2 month fetus could easily live outside the mother. My sister's child was born at 8 months, due to the pregnant mom's own health problems. The child was fine and over 5 lbs. You might as well ask if a 9 month pregnant woman should be allowed to have an abortion if nothing is wrong. Come on.

The reason there shouldn't be laws against such things is that there's always an exception that proves the rule. Is there some reason why somebody might need a late term abortion, ever? Yes, there are sometimes reasons. However, you and I don't know these people, don't know the particular case, don't know what the problem is, and never will. That's where doctors come in, not laypeople. It should not be up to some politician running for re-election to cynically decide some unknown woman 10 years in the future can't decide her own fate. People's health should not be up for popular vote, or to profit some ruthless politician who doesn't give a damn, they just want a job.

I can tell you, there are no women that think abortions are fun and have them for entertainment. That's incredibly insulting to all women, especially ones that are judged by total strangers as bad people when they really have a serious reason for an abortion. Many women who have abortions are doing it because of unforeseen health issues. Piling on and saying they're evil is just kicking someone when they're down. In some cases, women are carrying dead babies, for example, then screamed at and called a baby killer while walking into an abortion clinic with a dead baby in their womb that needs to be removed. Isn't that enough suffering without a bunch of loud mouthed, sadistic ignoramouses piling on?

Don't judge people you don't know. It's above your pay grade. Leave the divine judgments to God, and if you're lucky, He'll judge you Himself, instead of letting random morons at a Tea Party rally do it for Him.

All of this hostility towards the people who are charged with raising America's kids is a symptom of a deep-seated misogyny in society in general. Women are not evil. They don't hate children. Men are not going to save the babies of the world by making slaves out of their mothers. Check out countries where women have no rights. Children are treated like garbage too, often molested, enslaved or beaten, and everybody is poorer, not just women and children. In real life, countries where women can control their own bodies and finances are more prosperous, not less, and more children are born alive and healthy. The UN has done studies about this, it is a well known fact.

[Marrah_G]

124. That never happens

At 8 1/2 months it would be a premature birth.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. yes of course but I think the Roe v Wade demarcation is reasonable.

You have dominion over your own body, however there is a point in time in a pregnancy where reasonable people can agree that there are two distinct bodies involved, and that the demarcation originally set by Roe v Wade seems to be a reasonable one.

[RainDog]

106. agreed n/t

[Occupy_2012]

115. Conservatives are fighting day and night to overturn Roe.

All the laws up for vote now are about eliminating exceptions for rape, incest, life and health of the mother, and some states are deliberately putting these test laws out there to overturn Roe V. Wade. There are literally states right now where politicians are campaigning that hospitals have the right to refuse to save a woman's life, if she needs an abortion to live. This draconian treatment of women as "fallen women" who need to be punished, is plain pure misogyny. None of these proposed laws are saying, let's keep Roe v. Wade, they are all saying, let's eliminate access to abortions even if it kills women, because we value the baby's life over the mother's.

In medical terms, no, there aren't two people, until there are two people. A fetus can kill a mother right up to the last day, if she is in a car accident, has a serious illness, blood pressure issues, flu, a stroke, heart attack, or whatever. These things can happen very suddenly. Sometimes doctors have to remove a fetus to save a woman's life. That's an on-the-spot judgment call that has to be made by doctors as it happens. It shouldn't be decided years in advance by non-doctors based on poll results.

[Warren Stupidity]

149. The reasoning in Roe v Wade is sound.

They chose viability as the demarcation, and held that to be the third trimester.

If you can find some evidence that 'in medical terms .. there aren't two people', please post it, as I think your assertion is not valid from a medical/biological viewpoint. Your alleged proof: 'a fetus can kill a mother right up to the last day' does not establish that 'in medical terms .. there aren't two people', it establishes that pregnancy can have life threatening consequences. An object that possesses the attribute 'able to kill me' is not therefore an object that is me. It is certainly an object that I should be able to prevent from harming me if I am able to.

Roe v Wade did nothing at all to prevent medically necessary abortions - which is why rightwing theocrats have tried to ban medically necessary late term abortions - that was never (until rather recently) an issue. The abortion issue was (again until the recent radicalization of the theocratic right) about non-medically necessary abortions, and the original reasoning of the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade remains a just, sound principled decision.

[valerief]

46. Yes to infinity. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. Of course it is -

but that doesn't mean we can't call her a moron for making really stupid choices.

[SidDithers]

50. Yes...

Absolutely, yes.

Sanctity of person.

Sid

[intheflow]

54. Yes, But not the right to choose.

The right to control her own body. That's the right we're talking about. I hate that we've couched it in such a coy way - the right to "choose." Choice is a market-based term: women will always be able to pay for an abortion if they want or need one - if they can afford one. If Roe is overturned, poor women will not have that "choice." Yet everyone deserves the human right to control their own body, female or otherwise..

[Gormy Cuss]

62. +1

[Contrary1]

60. Who on DU said it wasn't? n/t

[newspeak]

68. I know some on DU don't like nader

but he gave a great answer on birthing rights. He stated that the decision is solely up to the woman, with her family and her clergy, it should not be the right of the government to dictate such a decision.

[truebrit71]

64. I believe that no-one has the right to tell a woman she CAN'T make the choice...

...but it is more complicated than a simple black and white issue...

[Desertrose]

67. Yes, absolutely.

Does that mean her choices are always the wisest....no.

We're all human after all.....

[dtexdem]

69. After a fetus' brain starts to work, there is a benefit-of-the-doubt argument ...

about self-consciousness so personhood.

But there is NO doubt that the mother is a person. So the mother's undoubted personhood would seem to trump a benefit-of-the-doubt. But it is the mother's right to decide how to deal with the benefit-of-the-doubt fetus.

But here's the thing: Roe v Wade allowed greater limitations on choice in the third trimester, when the fetus' brain has "booted up." It is likely wise to stick to support for the Roe v Wade ruling.

[Rex]

75. Yes it is.

Respect the person, not the policy. Paper doesn't trump personhood imo.

[me b zola]

79. Agreed n/t

[Aerows]

82. Yes.

Because when it ceases to be her right, others make choices for her that could lead her to die.

[Donnachaidh]

85. Absolutely.

Anyone who says otherwise has their head up their asses.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

89. I'm with Roe vs Wade on this: in the first two trimesters yes, in the third trimester no.

The law exists to protect people.

The defining characteristic of a person is a mind.

The physical structure required to support a mind appears to develop after about 22-24 weeks.

As such, I believe that for the first two trimesters abortion only involves one person, and is no business of anyone else; after that point, the foetus may well be a person and as such it is at least potentially legitimate for the state to intervene on its behalf.

In practice that's largely irrelevant - only a tiny fraction of abortions are in the third trimester, almost invariably for reasons that no sane state would dream of doubting. But presentience abortions are purely a private matter, whereas postsentience ones are a legitimate subject of public interest.

[Occupy_2012]

117. Why do you assume all abortions are voluntary?

Late term abortions are often health related. Do you really want to wait for a judge to get you a court order to make an exception, while your wife is bleeding to death on the table?

And don't assume any of the people making these judgments have enough common sense to know when to butt out. We've plainly seen they don't.

May I say, often mens' remarks about this issue show a marked ignorance of the risks of childbirth. During difficult, life threatening childbirths, doctors sometimes have to choose the mother over the baby's survival. That's a minute-by-minute situation. There is no time for lawyers, police, or judges. Put some value on a woman's life.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

121. Why do you assume that I assume that all abortions are voluntary?

I certainly didn't say anything that could lead to that conclusion.

[jeff47]

136. Because you want to ban 3rd trimester abortions

At the end of your post you throw on a fig leaf claiming nobody would seek to ban medically necessary 3rd trimester abortions. To counter that argument, let me point to Dr. Tiller's dead body.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

147. Did you even *read* my post?

I do not want to ban 3rd trimester abortions.

I did not say that I want to ban 3rd trimester abortions.

I explicitly said that I did not want to ban 3rd trimester abortions.

And you post a response "Because you want to ban 3rd trimester abortions".

If you want to engage with what I wrote, feel free. But posting accusations that are not merely *unsupported* by what I wrote, but are actually *refuted* by it, really doesn't impress me.

[avaistheone1]

91. Absolute and unconditional.

:kick:

[wickerwoman]

94. Her right to control her own body, yes.

Her right to freedom from criticism or the financial consequences of the decisions she has made, no.

[FiveGoodMen]

96. Has anyone suggested outlawing kids beyond a certain number?

If yes, then you have a point.

If no, then you think a woman's right to choose is absolute but others' right to express their opinion about that choice is NOT absolute.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

100. Yes. It's her body and her life. My, or anybody else's opinion, doesn't count.

"Freedom is the absolute right of all adult men and women to seek permission for their actions only from their own conscience and reason, and to be determined in their actions only by their own will, and consequently to be responsible only to themselves, and then to the society to which they belong, but only insofar as they have made a free decision to belong to it." Mikhail Bakunin

[noiretextatique]

104. yes

[MichiganVote]

107. Absolutely.

[Gamow]

109. Yes. K&R.

[JackDragna]

110. I think there's two separate issues you bring up.

The first being, should the state regulate a woman's right to abortion or contraception - to that, I say, absolutely not. If we include the right to have as many children as she wants - then I think we include in the discussion the issue of how an individual's choices affect the society around them. Simply put, I consider it irresponsible for any family, such as the notorious Duggars, to have as many children as their bodies and psyches will sustain before they drop dead. A human life, once created, is an entity to which the state and society at large has obligations. If this simply comes down to an issue of choice, and society doesn't look at the ramifications of increasing populations at the community, national and global level, then I think we're setting ourselves up for calamity.

I wish it were black and white, but I struggle with this on a moral level. I have no idea what the proper role of government should be in regulating the population of its citizens, but I'm also not comfortable with just seeing every person born on this Earth as a "blessing."

[Hamlette]

111. no

absent a showing of harm to mother's health, there should be limits when the baby is viable.

I don't know how to regulate what would happen then. If the mother wants an abortion and the child survives, what should the doctor or nurses do? Let it starve to death? Take it away and put it up for adoption?

I realize that most abortion procedures destroy the fetus but I think it is emotionally draining on the medical staff.

That said, if the mother's health is in danger, she gets the procedure.

She has full decision up to 6 months. After that, depends on how developed the kid is. If she can't decide in 6 months, she should have a reason.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

112. According to the trimesters established by Roe v. Wade, yes.

[calimary]

114. You bet your sweet bippy it's absolute. And absolutely, utterly NON-NEGOTIABLE.

Period. End of sentence. End of story.

When men can start getting pregnant, they can start telling me all about it. Until then, they do not have the last word over what happens with, or within, MY body. That right as a woman is mine and mine ALONE. It is an ABSOLUTE. It's a non-starter and NON-NEGOTIABLE. Not even on the table.

[Stinky The Clown]

118. That you have to argue that point on this "liberal" board is no surprise to me.

I agree with your view, for the record.

[Bonobo]

119. No.

She couldn't decide to abort at 8 months, right?

That is a condition.

[defendandprotect]

120. Duggers are having their 20th child ... !! Sickening -- but up to her -- !!

or is it Druggers?

[Motown_Johnny]

122. Up until viability ... yes

but once the fetus (since it is a fetus long before viability) can live independently then it should have a chance to do so unless the woman's health/life is at risk.

[Marrah_G]

123. Yes

I can disagree with a woman's choices, but I believe that she has a right to control her own body even if those choices are bad.

I also think that we as a society have a right to ensure the children have decent living conditions after they are born.

[LWolf]

127. No right is absolute and unconditional.

Rights and responsibilities go together, and rights end at the place your choice or freedom harms another.

Free speech, until it becomes hate speech, for example.

I support, beyond any question, all women's right to terminate a pregnancy, for any reason.

I always have.

I don't support the choice to have an unlimited amount of children. That's harmful to the planet.

Having taught the children of women like the example you give, and seen grandparents, foster parents, and other guardians struggling to deal with the neurological, cognitive, and other health issues caused by addict pregnancies, I think there should be limits.

One grandmother, at an IEP meeting for one of the 7 grandchildren she was raising, said in defeat, "Why can't they just make her get sterilized? I'm old. How many babies are they going to let her have, then take away, and give to me to raise?" Yes, her daughter was an addict who had baby after baby, AFTER the courts determined her unfit. So they'd wait for her to give birth, then take the baby damaged in utero and give it to the grandparents to raise. Every one of those children had physical and cognitive impairments caused by drug use during pregnancy.

This is not an isolated incident. I could list another 20-30 families of kids I've taught just in recent years without having to search my memory.

[jeff47]

138. If it's not absolute, it's not a right.

Hate speech is perfectly legal. It's even protected by the first amendment.

As for your forced sterilization argument, what happens when the woman in question "cleans up her act"? You sterilized her because she was addicted. She gets off the drugs, and she's still sterilized. In fact, forced sterilization would probably make it far harder to get off drugs - it reinforces the feelings of worthlessness.

[Freddie Stubbs]

140. Is shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater protected free speech?

If not, freedom of speech is not absolute.

[jeff47]

143. Yes. In fact you will find many plays, operas and musicals where people shout "fire".

Inciting a riot isn't. Difference is the transition from talking to action.

[LWolf]

162. er...no.

1. There are quite a few legal limits to the first amendment. They don't include hate speech, but hate speech can certainly be connected to inciting violence; possibly to slander.

2. It's not "my" forced sterilization argument. It's the grandmother's I quoted in my example.

3. "I" didn't sterilize anyone but myself and my ex-husband, with his consent.

4. I'm happy to celebrate the "cleaning up" of anyone's act. Getting clean, putting a life together...those are things to be celebrated. They don't, though, undo the damage already done to others. Much of that damage CAN'T be undone, and we shouldn't pretend it's okay.

I don't expect people to agree with me, and I'm not offended or intimidated in any way by disagreement. I will say, though, that to understand my point, you might have to have walked in my shoes. People who have dealt, first-hand, with the damaged children resulting in irresponsible and abusive reproduction, will understand, if not agree.

[Zorra]

129. Why, of course. Naturally. nt

[a_post_8]

130. No state jurisdiction within a person's body

In the history of political thought - the justifications for government speak of relations BETWEEN people and not within the person. For example, you could conscript a person to war - but historically they could not be ordered on a suicide mission - they had to volunteer - as the social contract for entering society meant obtaining your physical protection through the collective society.

Though drug laws have violated this principle - allowing the state within the body - it stands on "sand" - like corporate "personhood"...

The existence of state jurisdiction within the bounds of a person's physical body is outside of the justification for government. What a person does to his or her own body - is their personal sovereign realm.

All justifications for "democratic" government assume the sovereignty of the citizen.

The fetus is within the sovereign realm of the woman until birth.

[ehrnst]

133. The state has no jurisdiction to force someone to give the use of their body to another

Even convicts on death row can't be forced to give blood or participate in medical research.

[ehrnst]

131. Yes. There are other ways to deal with this woman who is addicted than to take away all women's

reproductive self-determination.

Getting her affordable, accessible medical treatment for her addiction is one way to deal with this.

Giving her access to long term contraception, such as Depo-Provera, as well offering her a financial incentive to do so is another. That would indeed need to be her choice, however.

[Bucky]

137. You're gonna have to excuse my diversity of opinion, but I agree with Roe v Wade

At least in principle, a pregnancy carried to 7 or 8 months should not be subject to abortion without a medically valid reason. These cases happen and they should be respected by law. But I think it's reasonable for a state to regulate third trimester abortions, based on the viability of the fetus.

[jeff47]

141. Until you can demonstrate a case like that happening

there should not be such a legal restriction. And I don't mean "I could imagine it happening". I mean women who actually got to 3rd trimester and say "oh, nevermind. Kill it."

Why? Because it opens the door to future restrictions. A good chunk of people think 2nd trimester is just as icky as 3rd. With your ban in place, they only have to get that line moved instead of introducing an entirely new ban.

[Bucky]

144. I don't have to demonstrate anything of the sort. You asked a purely philosophical question.

The Roe decision is all about those gray areas. It's a matter fraught with gray areas. "Viability" is a ridiculously fluid term, dependent on technology, distribution of services, and the opinions of physicians & patients.

[jeff47]

145. If you want a ban, you should demonstrate that the to-be-banned activity is happening

And happening more than a trivial amount of time.

This isn't about the attempted balancing act in Roe. It's about what the law should be.

[Bucky]

146. I don't know why when faced with a different opinion you forget what philosophical means.

This is a purely academic debate. Even if it weren't, I don't know why actual instances have to be demonstrated before a law proscribing them is enacted. Maybe you should pick a fight with someone who's genuinely anti-choice. I'm not, although I would be in the case of an 8th month pregnancy where there is no medical need for it. But, as your request for evidence makes clear, such cases don't really exist. Pragmatically speaking, we're arguing over nothing.

[ehrnst]

157. Yes, such laws are "solutions looking for a problem." Uneccessary, insulting & potentially harmful.

[ehrnst]

155. And a limb should not be subject to amputation without a medically valid reason.

But no one seems to think that a law is required to keep people from demanding a healthy limb be amputated, or to keep physicians from doing it on demand.

I understand that women who are pregnant don't wait very long after finding out that they are pregnant to decide whether or not to continue, which makes late term abortions on healthy pregnancies pretty rare - like people requesting amputations on healthy limbs.

Why then do we need laws to keep women pregnant past 7-8 months, and doctors from doing those abortions?

[Mad_Dem_X]

148. YES. eom

[Umbral]

150. Of course it is, anything less is slavery. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

151. please quit conflating this arguments. no-one or practically no-one

is denying her rights to have multiple children, but to pretend that i dont criticize poor choices is a bunch of bullshit. i would criticize 19 abortions too. i wouldnt legislate it, but i have a right to criticize poor choices.

pretending that those of us who are against overpopulating the world, are exactly the same as those people who are trying to legislate abortion right away, is just pretense.

:eyes:

[closeupready]

152. Thank you.

+1000. :hi: Something can be legal and yet still be a matter ripe (no pun intended) for criticism. The threadstarter seems to be attempting to suggest lack of complete absolute support in any and all circumstances means we think it should be illegal. :wtf: Dumb logic.

I'm with Lioness. ;)

[southernyankeebelle]

153. Women have 100% rights over their body. However, if this woman

you mention was on crack why didn't the courts take the children away in the first place? That is where it should have happened. She should be forced to get cleaned or lose your child, period. Now in the state I live in If a woman wants to have her tubes tied after 2 children the doctors won't due it. They will do it after 3 children. They said because you may want another child. Who are the doctors to tell me that. I had one child and had alot of trouble carrying a baby. I only gained 3 pds and that was in the last month. I kept losing weight. I had alot of medical issues. I had my child at 32. So my husband and I talked and we decided we didn't want any more kids. He decided to get fixed. He was in the military and we were stationed overseas. The doctor wouldn't do it because we had one child. We tried to explain but it was against his religion. He referred us to the family practice doctor. We went to visit him and talked to him about it and he had no problem. We have been married 32 yrs. We never regretted that decision. We have one child and he has a child and a stepchild and wants at least one more. He loves kids. I never looked back on my decision. It is still in the womans hands because it is her body. Don't bring your religion into my decisions.

[varelse]

156. Yes

[Aerows]

158. Yes - and here is why

You can't make legislation on this issue that doesn't end up being black and white. I CERTAINLY don't want state mandated abortions anymore than I want state mandated pregnancies.

Either path is BAD for women's health care, and horrible for women's rights. It should be a choice between the woman and her doctor. When you start allowing medical care to be dictated by religious zealots and politicians, instead of doctors and their patients, you leave the door open for all manner of horrors.

[Crunchy Frog]

160. I don't think I believe that anything is Absolute and Unconditional.

And also, even if they have the right, I also have the right to have and express opinions about their exercize of that right.

I personally think that the Duggars are insane to be going for a 20th child.

As to the crack addict baby machine, crack is an illegal substance and she is a serial law breaker. Perhaps she needs to be incarcerated until she's ready to give up her lawbreaking behavior.