Charleston shooting

[Andara Bledin]

How can I see all those ultrasounds, all those books showing how the unborn child progresses in the womb...I can't look at that and say "abortion is not killing anything and thus is nothing more than an act of choice".

This isn't really a thread for abortion, but everybody kills millions of organisms every single day, and we'd die if we didn't. The question isn't a matter of killing, but of when it ceases to be acceptable.

Tying it back to this thread, it's pretty plain that killing other adult humans for the purposes of inciting violent xenophobia between that Other group and one's Us group is not in any way shape or manner acceptable to decent individuals.

[TheHuckster]

I wouldn't really call abortions rare. About 20% of pregnancies end in abortion in the US, although it has indeed been trending downwards in the last 30 years, which I would agree is due to contraceptives and likely better education as well.

[Gravekeeper]

But yes you hit the nail right on the head. How can I see all those ultrasounds, all those books showing how the unborn child progresses in the womb...I can't look at that and say "abortion is not killing anything and thus is nothing more than an act of choice".

Pro-choice doesn't say "abortion is not killing anything and thus is nothing more than an act of choice" though. No one does. No one *wants* an abortion. Hence its pro-choice not pro-woohoo fetus murder.

I mean their core belief is that the unborn child is an individual person (they do have unique DNA and such right at conception) and thus abortion is the act of killing a human life (and doing so for only elective reasons and doing so when the baby can feel pain (the way abortions are done is not a pretty sight; let's just say they're not just painlessly put down like an old dog or death row inmate) is especially not acceptable).

Most of the stuff about fetal pain used by the more rabid pro-life side is scientifically bunk. The point at which a fetus even develops the neurological pathways to detect pain ( and that is *detect*, not cognitively process ) is also around the point it starts to become potentially viable outside of the womb.

Pro-choice does not mean no term limits and in the rare event a late term abortion must be performed for medical reasons, steps are taking to ensure the baby does not feel any pain. No one likes late term abortions on *either* side of this issue. They just aggravatingly don't always seem to realize they agree on something. -.-

But see, here's the ultimate problem: Restricting or denying access to safe abortions leads to unsafe abortions and later term abortions. As does a lack of healthcare, education, birth control, etc etc etc and yet, infuriatingly, the most rabid pro-life types ( not you guys ) and pro-life politicians are typically also against healthcare, sex ed, etc as well. Conflating the very thing claim to be against.

Even putting all that aside, late term abortions are *extremely* rare and the better access to abortion, birth control and sex education in a country, the rarer they are. If your problem is late term abortions, then you should be advocating better access to abortions. Not the opposite. >.>

[s_stabeler]

exactly. I, personally, am pro-choice but not exactly pro-abortion. (basically, my opinion is that when the foetus is completely dependant on the mother- IOW, before it is viable outside the womb- then it's nobody's business but the mother's ( though the father should know the foetus has been aborted, and it IS a good idea to discuss matters first) when the kid is viable outside the womb, then I consider it to only be acceptable in cases of foetal or mother's health is in jeopardy.

[Tama]

This just reminds me of the girl from Dirty Dancing...abortions were very unsafe and she ended up needing a doctor because of how unsafely the abortion was done.

It's things like that that make me pro-choice. Plus, I would really rather a woman who doesn't want a child to have an abortion than pop it out and never care for it, scar it for life because she resents it for ruining her life, etc...causing god knows how many mental issues, and...I'm just going to stop there.

As others have said, better access to Plan B pills, condoms, etc, would prevent the need for most abortions.

[Estil]

Gravedigger: Pro-choice doesn't say "abortion is not killing anything and thus is nothing more than an act of choice" though. No one does. No one *wants* an abortion. Hence its pro-choice not pro-woohoo fetus murder.

If I haven't made this clear already, it's not the rank and file pro-choicers I have a problem with. I imagine deep down they do know abortion is taking a life and it is a sad thing to abort a child, but are concerned that making abortion outright illegal will turn out no better than Prohibition. My beef is with the abortionists (a true doctor's first and most sacred act is "do no harm" and that is flagrantly violated every time an abortion is done (at least those of the elective variety), so you will never catch me calling an abortionist a "doctor") and the major pro-choice groups and the politicians who openly endorse them. To say nothing of the seven guys in black robes back in 1973 who threw (at minimum) the 10th Amendment right out the window (remember pre-Roe only left abortion up to the states, and even post-Roe abortion is not realistically going anywhere anytime soon in states that are not bothered by it) who made legally endorsed abortion the law of the land without a single syllable in the Constitution to even come close to backing it up. It was those seven guys in black robes who ended up making abortion the nation's most controversial issue these past 40+ years...I don't think it's a coincidence that the right-to-life movement as we know it today mostly started right after Roe.

Gravekeeper: Most of the stuff about fetal pain used by the more rabid pro-life side is scientifically bunk. The point at which a fetus even develops the neurological pathways to detect pain ( and that is *detect*, not cognitively process ) is also around the point it starts to become potentially viable outside of the womb.

Good try but from what I've gathered so far the general consensus (there's no way to know this for sure) is that the baby (yes, he or she is a baby not a mere "fetus") can feel pain at least at 5-6 months along, right about the time it is at least semi-realistically possible to survive outside the womb (I was a two month preemie myself and that was back in 1980). In practice though, like you said, most abortionists don't offer abortions that far along anyway.

Gravekeeper: Pro-choice does not mean no term limits and in the rare event a late term abortion must be performed for medical reasons, steps are taking to ensure the baby does not feel any pain. No one likes late term abortions on *either* side of this issue. They just aggravatingly don't always seem to realize they agree on something. -.-

Good. If we are careful to put down death row inmates and old dogs in a painless matter then I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to insist on. Both mother and baby are patients and like I said, a true medical doctor does no harm to either one if it can at all be avoided.

Gravekeeper: But see, here's the ultimate problem: Restricting or denying access to safe abortions leads to unsafe abortions and later term abortions. As does a lack of healthcare, education, birth control, etc etc etc and yet, infuriatingly, the most rabid pro-life types ( not you guys ) and pro-life politicians are typically also against healthcare, sex ed, etc as well. Conflating the very thing claim to be against.


Remember I'm not in the pro-life movement on religious grounds (and where I'm from a lot of the pro-life editorials in our local newspaper use religious type arguments often and I just don't think that's the right strategy...I mean we do need non-Christians on our side too you know...). You already know where I stand on birth control/condoms and such. As far as sex ed, I'm rather skeptical that a so-called "abstinence only" curriculum would even be possible (sounds like a rather short and boring program). Just like with anything else in life, the smartest thing is to put ALL the cards on the table. For example, precisely how effective the different forms of birth control are, and stressing that both sides of a sexual relationship have equal responsibly. Sex is an adult, mature decision and should be respected and treated as such.

Gravekeeper: Even putting all that aside, late term abortions are *extremely* rare and the better access to abortion, birth control and sex education in a country, the rarer they are. If your problem is late term abortions, then you should be advocating better access to abortions. Not the opposite. >.>

I'm with you on the birth control and sex ed part...and like I've eluded before I'll take "Heather has Two Mommies" over "Heather gets Aborted" or "Heather gets in an Abusive Home" or "Heather spends all her first 18 years on an orphanage" any day. C'mon, two out of three is not bad right?

[Andara Bledin]

I wouldn't really call abortions rare. About 20% of pregnancies end in abortion in the US, although it has indeed been trending downwards in the last 30 years, which I would agree is due to contraceptives and likely better education as well.

Nearly 90% of those happen during the first trimester, with 33% happening at least than 7 weeks and another 30% during weeks 7-8 and another 25% by the end of week 12. In contrast, just over 1% of all abortions occur during the entirety of the 3rd trimester. It's worth noting that this includes abortions that are medically necessary for the health of the mother or child.

It's worth noting that it's not even considered a fetus until 10 weeks; prior to that, it is still medically an embryo.

Also worth noting is that in some number of cases listed, likely significant, the procedure would have been done sooner had legislation designed to obstruct access not been passed. One graphic I found listed the number claiming obstruction as causing them to not abort during the first trimester was nearly 50%. And over 70% didn't even recognize they were pregnant. >_<

[Gravekeeper]

[I]My beef is with the abortionists (a true doctor's first and most sacred act is "do no harm" and that is flagrantly violated every time an abortion is done (at least those of the elective variety), so you will never catch me calling an abortionist a "doctor") and the major pro-choice groups and the politicians who openly endorse them.

"Do not harm" is not actually part of the Hippocratic oath so your entire point here is kind of moot. Its just a pop culture misconception. The actual oath states:

"If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty."

Even if we put all that aside, doctors must often do short term harm for long term good.

To say nothing of the seven guys in black robes back in 1973 who threw (at minimum) the 10th Amendment right out the window

The funny thing about the Constitution is that those who drafted it could not foresee the future. Otherwise that 2nd Amendment would have been a hell of a lot more specific for example.

It was those seven guys in black robes who ended up making abortion the nation's most controversial issue these past 40+ years...I don't think it's a coincidence that the right-to-life movement as we know it today mostly started right after Roe.

Abortion only continues to be controversial because it like gay marriage, immigration, etc are convenient right wing wedge issues to drive the base to the polls come election time. if you go back 20 years to 1995, the pro-life side was actually a clear minority ( 33% or so ). It up ticked sharply over 96-97 because it was used as a wedge issue against Clinton. Since then its been a reliable wedge issue for the GOP whenever they need to rile up the base.

Additionally, the rabid pro-life core ( the ones that want all abortions banned ) is actually very small. Just very, very loud.

Good try but from what I've gathered so far the general consensus (there's no way to know this for sure) is that the baby (yes, he or she is a baby not a mere "fetus") can feel pain at least at 5-6 months along, right about the time it is at least semi-realistically possible to survive outside the womb

I believe that is exactly what I just said? -.-

As far as sex ed, I'm rather skeptical that a so-called "abstinence only" curriculum would even be possible (sounds like a rather short and boring program).

Its not, the states with abstinence only sex ed also have the highest teen pregnancy rates. >.>

[Hyena Dandy]

My thing with abortion is coming from a different angle. For me, it's not about when a fetus becomes a person. I find that irrelevant. I've considered it from an angle of accepting, even from conception, that a child is alive, and I still can't say I'm against it.

If I was told I'd need to go through nine months of mood swings, weight gain, physical and psychological stress, potential physical danger, and pain, in the name of a child I've never met, with a 10-20% chance that the child will die anyway... I would have to think very hard about whether or not I'd go through with that. Very good chance I wouldn't.

I wouldn't dream of demanding that someone be legally required to put themselves through that for a child who's five years old, much less one that's five weeks old.

[Jester]

Those states/smaller places that'd rather not have anything to do with it can simply choose not to license any abortionists/abortion facilities. There ya go, sounds pretty "pro-choice" to me!

Tell that to a woman in one of those states.

Tell that to a woman that has to travel hundreds of miles to the closest facility to her to get the procedure, losing work and badly needed income to do so, and then is told to come back in a day or two, once she's had time to think things over. That is the reality of many women NOW, in many states whose leaders have intentionally made it that difficult for her. This happens in many states to this day, with Roe still standing.

How much choice do you think that women will have once such states are freed from Roe to make their own decisions and effectively end legal abortions in those states?

You say this sounds pro-choice to you. In a twisted sense, it is. It is giving the predominantly male leaders of many states the right to choose how women in those states will and will not receive reproductive and medical treatment.

Sadly, in that scenario, the average woman doesn't get any choice at all in decisions regarding her own body and her own life.

So no, that doesn't sound pretty pro-choice to me at all.

[Estil]

Who said anything about "reproductive and medical treatment"? Look, I can't fault you as a pro-choicer for believing that a woman who wishes to have an abortion to be able to freely get one no questions asked...but why do "abortion services" (which would be the most proper and neutral term) have to hide behind terms like "women's health/reproductive clinics" and the term "reproductive rights/freedom" is bad enough but now I'm hearing it lately called "reproductive justice"?? A clinic and medical treatment involve keeping people healthy and helping those who are sick or hurt to get well. And brutally slaughtering an unborn child in the name of "choice" is bad enough but it most definitely is not "justice" or "treatment" of any kind.

[Hyena Dandy]

have to hide behind terms like "women's health/reproductive clinics"

Because they usually provide more than abortion services, so it'd be stupid to just call them abortion places. It'd be like calling Harvard University a science class. Sure, they do that, but they do other things, too.

[s_stabeler]

How much choice do you think that women will have once such states are freed from Roe to make their own decisions and effectively end legal abortions in those states?

You say this sounds pro-choice to you. In a twisted sense, it is. It is giving the predominantly male leaders of many states the right to choose how women in those states will and will not receive reproductive and medical treatment.

Sadly, in that scenario, the average woman doesn't get any choice at all in decisions regarding her own body and her own life.

So no, that doesn't sound pretty pro-choice to me at all.

not to mention that considering the respect shown to the Supreme Court by the more rabid anti-gay marriage states (Texas, for example, told county court clerks that they still didn't have to issue marriage licenses to gay couples) I can't help but suspect that states that ban abortion would ALSO ban "traveling to another state for the purposes of terminating a pregnancy"

[Jester]

Who said anything about "reproductive and medical treatment"? Look, I can't fault you as a pro-choicer for believing that a woman who wishes to have an abortion to be able to freely get one no questions asked...but why do "abortion services" (which would be the most proper and neutral term) have to hide behind terms like "women's health/reproductive clinics" and the term "reproductive rights/freedom" is bad enough but now I'm hearing it lately called "reproductive justice"?? A clinic and medical treatment involve keeping people healthy and helping those who are sick or hurt to get well. And brutally slaughtering an unborn child in the name of "choice" is bad enough but it most definitely is not "justice" or "treatment" of any kind.

First of all, however you feel about it, an abortion IS a medical procedure. To say it is not is to deny reality. It is invasive surgery. You may not agree with the purpose of that invasive surgery, and that is a separate argument, but that is what an abortion is, in the most objective view of it.

As for my choice of phraseology, it was not accidental. I said "reproductive and medical treatment" because virtually every such facility offers contraception, gynecological exams, and medical checkups throughout women's pregnancies, for those who choose to have children rather than an abortion. These are not simply "abortion clinics," as some like to label them, but doctors' offices that offer full medical services to women.

And I noticed that in your response to my comments, you attacked that one phrase, but ignored my larger point, that being that this "freedom of choice" you cited was actually the freedom of the mostly male leaders of various states to choose what services of this type the women in their state could have access to.

Feel free to continue to ignore the fact that men are choosing what women can and cannot do with their own bodies. And these choices male politicians are making for women flies in the face of what most medical organizations believe to be the best for women. These organizations are not politicians seeking public office, but doctors advising on the best way people can get the best medical care. Advice that mostly male politicians continually and stubbornly refuse to heed.

[HYHYBT]

I can't help but suspect that states that ban abortion would ALSO ban "traveling to another state for the purposes of terminating a pregnancy"

I don't imagine the courts would take that well. Crossing state lines makes it interstate commerce, which is federal jurisdiction.