posted
I have always been pro-choice. Mostly because I have never felt a strong conviction either way about abortion and am willing to leave it up to those who have. My question now is, if liberals, or Democrats were to tone down their pro-choice stance, could we possibly end the perception that Republicans hold a monopoly on morality?
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Half of America voted for a man who supports banning abortion, possibly for unrelated reasons. It's different.
Oh, the "Republican soluion", eh? We're feeling partisan today?
I don't think watching the results would be an option. First you'd have to get out of the way of the other half of America who would be protesting, and then you'd have to mobilize your ambulance crew to take care of the desperate mothers-to-be who didn't want to be and took things into their own hands.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We filled the Presidency, The Congress, The Senate and The House with Republicans who feel that illegalizing abortion is a solution.
They have "earned" the right to change the laws, and it is something they campaigned high and hard on.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thor, I really don't think it will happen. I am very much disappointed with the Republicans, at least on a national level. They will hem and haw and do nothing.
That said, if civil rights laws protecting the unborn are so useless, why do you expect them to do any good for homosexuals?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. Unfortunately, many people seem to choose their candidate based on this one issue, and then decide that that candidate must be right about everything else too. Anyone opposing their view on abortion is immoral and so all their other positions must be immoral too. I hate this assumption and will give in on abortion if someone would agree that liberal positions on education, welfare, gun control, foreign policy, and gay marriage are more compassionate and possibly "moral" than their conservative counterparts.
(Edited to fix a run on sentence. Only the names have been changed, the events are still the same.)
[ November 07, 2004, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Wussy Actor ]
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mabus, if civil rights protecting women's control over thier own bodies are so useless, why do you expect *any* to do any good?
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actor, they may be more moral, but they are also unworkable to my way of thinking. They involve massive and expensive social programs that still may not generate the desired results. All we pro-lifers are looking for, by contrast, is a simple prohibition.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has to be easier that creating pograms that stop unwanted pregnancies, though.
-----
This, incidentally, had a great effect on how I voted. First, I lined up the candidates with what I liked most about each, and then voted for the candidate who had the position I liked on the issue that actually looked like it would be addressed. I don't like abortion, but it's not a factor in voting because no one is going to do anything anyway.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leah, I think the "abortion rights" movement has been very effective. I disagree with it, but I do not doubt that it has largely accomplished what it set out to do. I do not see why the right-to-life movement must necessarily fail. As for prohibitions, I suppose they are "simple" and effective to the extent that people agree that the thing prohibited is bad. But I don't think anyone on our side is asking for a huge, complicated regulatory apparatus to enforce the laws--just that SOMETHING be done to stop the massive loss of life.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You must be confused. Either that, or you consider misogyny to be a positive moral value.
And I love how you think infanticide protects women's rights. Since I can assure you my reasons for being pro-life have no misogynistic qualities maybe you should try logical discourse as opposed to name calling.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with the abortion issue is if they, meaning the Republican party ban abortions not only will abortions still happen but many of those who claim they are pro-life will get abortions in certain situations. Like if one of their 15 year olds ended up pregnant. They would find a way to get it done even if it meant going to another country or something... It's a very, very hypocritical approach. In fact, if they dislike abortions so much they why don't they suppor things like education on the use of birth controls or something that would really slow it down from happening? I am so tired of these hypocrites I could scream....
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: What about a solution that reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies?
We could create better people through Love, Education, Family and Time, but this would cost our economy tons of man-hours and money, so it's not an option.
quote: Is such a solution possible?
In a movie or a book maybe.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm truly getting disgusted with that party. It's one thing to be pro-life. I can understand why. And I am on the borderline, but do not try to tell me that abortion is immoral and war isn't. That is being hypocritical to the highest degree. If they are going to be pro-life they should be COMPLETELY pro-life and you just can't do that when you are crushing people without a good reason... That is how I feel on the subject.... Somewhat offensive Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: ...the vast majority of those who want to ban abortion are men
I don't think that's true. Looking for stats right now. It wasn't my perception of the issue anyway. The activists you see on TV seem to be predominately female.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, no matter how many officials the Republicans got elected, they cannot ban abortion. The Supreme Court, interpretting the authority of the Constitution, won't let them.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:you, as a man, do not support the right of a woman to choose whether or not she is pregnant, you are asserting control over her that she did not necessarily grant you.
Also, there is no such right! Nature decides whether a woman gets pregnant, not the woman. That's just a fact (unless she is Bene Gesserit.)
The woman gets to decide if she has sex, though. But if she does, and risks pregnancy, then it's up to the roll of the biological dice.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Because the Supreme Court has ruled that the Consitution gives women the right to have an abortion during the beginning part of pregnancy. That's what Roe vs. Wade was!
Apparently, according to the Court, the 14th amendment guarantees woman the right to abortion, based on the previously recognized right to privacy.
quote: Like whom? When a high-profile woman comes out in favor of banning abortion, it generally makes the news.
I was referring more to the groups of people holding signs at rallies. I could be wrong, but they always appeared to be female dominated. Still looking for stats.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: There are no major differences between mens' and womens' stands on the issue. 40% of men believe abortion should be generally available, and 37% of women think it should be. 20% of men think it should not be permitted, and slightly more women, 24%, agree.
quote: Being pro-life is not necessarily misogynistic. But referring to abortion as infanticide is. If you, as a man, do not support the right of a woman to choose whether or not she is pregnant, you are asserting control over her that she did not necessarily grant you. Asserting control by force requires superiority. If you consider yourself to be superior to women, you're a misogynist.
(I support the rights of women to be anti-choice, but the vast majority of those who want to ban abortion are men)
And in my opinion being pro-choice is asserting control of another living thing that doesn't have the ability to tell you how it feels. I feel that its no better than shooting a day-old baby in the head. So how am I being mysognyistic? I don't consider myself superior, I just don't think a woman has any more right to kill her child than I do to kill you. If a woman told me that she thought I shouldn't be able to kill my theoretical son I wouldn't accuse her of acting like she's superior to me.
The only valid way to adress the abortion issue is to determine whether or not the unborn is of equal moral worth to the born. Before you look for exceptions to the rule you have to determine the rule.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me that's like saying we should legalize murder so long as its done in a humane way and doesn't jeopardize the life of the murderer.
I feel it is justified to control other people's actions when those actions harm others. It has nothing to do with gender. I would feel the same way if both men and women could get pregnant.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
adam, you'made several significant errors in this thread. First, you've baldly stated something that is flat out wrong according to a host of studies and polls. Women tend to be slightly more anti-abortion rights than men. Men are nowhere close to a "vast majority" of those who support abortion.
Second, you insist on labeling those opposed to legal abortion as mysoginistic, despite the above and despite the fact that half (more worldwide) of all abortion victims are female.
Third, you raise the death penalty chimera. There are very few people who consider it always wrong to take a human life. The exceptions people consider legitimate differ - self-defense, defense of others, national defense, whatever. The death penalty is one exception, very controversial, but by no means utterly inconsistent with someone's opposition to what they consider infanticide.
You've basically shown an utter unwillingness to attempt to understand or respect the other side of the issue here, through labeling, spouting untrue generalizations, and oversimplification of complex issues.
quote: What about a solution that reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies? Is such a solution possible?
No doubt it is, and I will settle for it if that is all I can get. But let me ask this--what about a solution that reduces the number of black people who can't pay a poll tax? What about a solution that reduces the number of women who want child support payments?
I don't think you would be really satisfied by that. Liberals insist that the rights of women and racial minorities be codified into law rather than "working around" impediments to those rights. Yet when we propose the same for unborn children, they balk. Consistency, thou art a virtue.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe Mabus was glossing over a lot when it was claimed that the pro-life movement wanted a simple prohibition. If the abortion statistics are correct, then this simple prohibition will have a rather dramatic, IMO, impact on our society. Population increases, straining our social safety net (schools, welfare, medicaid, possibly eventual increase in law enforcement). Not to sound like a hysteric, but I could foresee the rise of orphanages because of the inability of public foster care systems to handle a larger load on already fairly tight budgets.
Before we pre-emptively ban abortion, or even severely restrict it, we need an "exit strategy", as it were. Until the pro-life movement (who shoulders the burden of designing the system to support it's prohibition request; we all will shoulder the burden of carrying it out) can put forth a good faith proposal that goes beyond sound bites and hand waving, and get some public support behind it, I don't see that we aren't trading one horrible situation for another.
posted
Why is it so hard to understand the difference between killing an innocent baby and a murderer.
quote: This is a meaningless argument; 100% of the victims of a ban on abortion would be women.
How is it meaningless when the majority of the victims of abortion are female? Furthermore, I don't think anyone is the "victim" of an abortion ban.
I only say I'm "pro-life" because that's what the anti-abortion movement has termed itself. Clearly you aren't "pro-choice" since you don't want to let the infants have a choice as to whether or not their life is worth living.
You're the one who has meaningless insults.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I've confused the issue myself. Before Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal. But people still had abortions. They did so under very unsafe circumstances that not only killed their fetus, but also put their own lives at risk. That will happen once again if Roe V. Wade is overturned.
It's like the Prohibition. People didn't stop drinking alchol during the Prohibition. They just bought it from the Mafia instead of licensed liquor stores.
So, one of your reasons that you oppose banning abortion is that abortions will happen illegally and unsafely?
Using your type of argument, you obviously support legalizing all drugs, because, well, people are using drugs illegally and unsafely, whereas government controlled drug use would be safer AND legal!
And as to the second part, well, everyone knows that people are addicted to abortions, too... Posts: 1466 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I may be wrong about this, but I want some statistics. I've discussed this with a lot of people of different viewpoints, and the number of women I've met who are in favor of a ban on abortion is miniscule compared to the number of men.
You were already linked one poll in this thread. Further, you clearly have not looked up the statistics yourself, yet for some reason feel comfortable claiming a “vast majority.” If you want to compare anecdotes, I’d be willing to bet I’ve hung out at a lot more pro-life events than you. There are significantly more women than men at these events.
Need another link: “But despite conventional wisdom, sex does not. Indeed, as usual, men and women support legal abortion in roughly equal numbers: 54 percent of men, and 58 percent of women, say it should be legal in all or most cases.” If you look at the chart just below this statement you’ll see a breakdown.
quote:This is a meaningless argument; 100% of the victims of a ban on abortion would be women.
And that is meaningless to proving misogyny. Almost all rapists are men; is banning rape anti-male?
quote:The first is that he labeled himself pro-life, which is obviously incompatible with support for the death penalty.
Actually, the more you value life, the worse of a crime you consider murder. Valuing life enough that you are sometimes willing to take life in response to wrongful ending of it can show a greater respect for life. It is not “obviously incompatible” with being pro-life any more than someone who believes in killing in self defense or defense of others. People might disagree on whether it meets the same standards, but the “obviousness” is missing.
quote:The second is the issue of control. With abortion, a woman is controling the life of a fetus. With the death penalty, the state is controling the life of a convicted murderer. If you believe that life begins at conception, abortion and the death penalty both involve taking a life by force.
Of course. No one has argued any differently. Again, it’s the reason behind the killing, and the moral culpability of the person being killed, that differentiates the two.
quote:The third is the idea that murder is ok if it is justified. nfl claimed it isn't in his response to me, but claimed that it is with regard to the death penalty. I'd like clarification.
One is doled out to a person who has done absolutely nothing wrong. The other is doled out to someone who has been convicted of murder. Pretty clear.
quote:On the contrary, I'm closer to understanding the other side as a result of this thread than I ever have been. Your post was an attack on me that did nothing to contribute to the discussion, and this paragraph is completely out of line since I've been making the argument more complex, and I'm perfectly willing to retract my untrue generalization upon discovery that it is untrue.
You don’t get to complain about attacks when you jump into this thread with a declaration that people who wish to ban abortion hate women.
posted
Since this got no responses on Sara's thread, I'll repost it here:
Whether or not abortion is legal may soon be a non issue - the new focus is access.
If enough doctors lose their licenses for their incompetence, or retire, and enough clinics get shut down because there aren't enough doctors to keep them open, then the pro-life movement doesn't even need to get it done in the courts.
A clinic recently shut down in Mississippi, taking the total number of abortion clinics in the state from 2 down to 1. The clinic closed because the doctor that was operating it had his license suspended, after a couple of deaths and some emergency hysterectomies due to perforated uteruses.
Mississippi suspended his license after Alabama suspended it - because you see, this guy is also the operator of the Summit Medical Clinic in Birmingham, AL where there were still more deaths and emergency hysterectomies. Now he's likely to have his license revoked. His hearing on the issue was Sept. 22nd and the decision should be handed down soon.
Yes, it would be best to make abortion unnecessary - I would love it if there were no unwanted pregnancies. But, both sides need to understand that regardless of how you feel about it, abortion may soon be unavailable - no matter how legal it is you can't get one done if there are no doctors willing to perform them.
According to a study, more than half of all current abortion providers are approaching retirement. Young doctors don't seem eager to enter the field.
Here's some info from a pro-choice medical student site.
quote:Since 1982, the number of abortion providers in the U.S. has fallen by 37%
Over half (57%) of all ob/gyns who perform abortion are 50 years of age or older (7). Many of today’s abortion providers are approaching or have reached retirement age, and few doctors have been trained to replace them.
The training issue came up recently, I can't find the link, but it I heard about it through some friends at Alabama Physicians for Life, there was some call to have training in how to do abortions mandatory for graduation from some medical schools (not for ob/gyn specialists, but ALL doctors would have to be trained in how to do it). It was fought successfully by pro-life students who objected to being forced to participate in something they saw as murder.
Regardless of where you stand on the subject - this is very interesting. What kind of situation would we have if abortion were still legal, but there were so few doctors that waiting periods were high and there was no way to get all of them performed until late into the 2nd or 3rd trimester? Or maybe not enough time to have them done at all?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education issued a ruling in 1996 that all accredited medical schools must provide abortion training as part of the regular curriculum, unless prohibited by religious beliefs.
So medical schools must offer it, but students with ethical or religious objections cannot be forced to participate.
quote:1996 Senate appropriations bill that includes the Coats Amendment, which forbids discrimination by the federal government against any health care entity that refuses to be involved in certain abortion-related activities. The amendment was put in place as a response to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's requirement that all accredited medical schools must provide abortion training as part of the regular curriculum, unless prohibited by religious beliefs.
And the government cannot discriminate against those medical schools that do not offer the training because of religious grounds. In other words, a Catholic hospital that provides medical school training does not have to provide training in abortion services.
Another article, about the quickly declining number of abortion providers offers some interesting insight into why it may be the case. It's a little old, written in 1992, but still interesting. I'll pull a few relevant quotes, it's fairly long but you can read it all at http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/grimes.html
quote: recent survey of family physicians in Kansas (10) revealed that physicians older than 40 years were more likely to support abortion rights than were their younger colleagues; this pattern was observed for both sexes.
quote:Harassment and intimidation may dissuade skilled clinicians from entering this field or convince them to quit. Harassment of providers takes many forms, ranging from picketing of homes and offices to obscene telephone calls to death threats.
Please note I do not support this - I prefer to fight the battle legally and peacefully, but it remains a fact that it occurs.
quote:Performing abortions no longer pays well. Because the cost of abortion (and the corresponding physician's fee) have not kept pace with inflation, both are now well below market value. In 1972, a first-trimester abortion in a clinic in New York city cost approximately $147; in 1989 dollars, that would translate into about $588 (Henshaw SK, personal communication, October 25, 1990). However, the average cost of such abortions in 1991 was below $300 (12). Thus, the true cost of an abortion is about half that in the early 1970s (6, 13).
During this interval, physicians have been paid progressively less for providing the same service. In 1973, physicians customarily received about $50 per case, the equivalent of about $190 today (Henshaw SK, personal communication, October 25, 1990). In contrast, current fees usually range from $30-50, with the largest private clinic provider in the nation paying $25 per operation. Invited to work part time in an abortion clinic, one young gynecologist replied, "I can generate as much income seeing office patients with vaginitis as I can by doing abortions . . . and without the hassles." Poor compensation for abortion services is a chronic problem in other countries as well (14).
quote:Working conditions for clinicians providing abortions are frequently unsatisfying. For clinicians who have spent years honing their diagnostic skills, abortion largely underutilizes their abilities and relegates them to the role of a technician. As noted by Potts, "when the patient was a 'client' who had decided on the prescription, this eliminated half the medical mythology and demoted the doctor to technician or tradesman" (14).
quote:Isolation can occur. Clinicians whose practice is limited to abortion services may become estranged from the medical community.
quote:The tedium of largely repetitive operations can be compounded by the emotional stress surrounding unwanted pregnancies and families in crisis (16, 17). A practice limited to women with personal crises differs markedly from the usual mix of patients in an obstetric and gynecologic practice.
quote: But I've confused the issue myself. Before Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal. But people still had abortions. They did so under very unsafe circumstances that not only killed their fetus, but also put their own lives at risk. That will happen once again if Roe V. Wade is overturned.
I have wondered about this. This "back-alleys-and coat-hangers" image is always brought up, but it seems there is a large pool of information on herbal/accupressure/etc abortions. I am pro-life, but I can think of three things in my kitchen cupboard that would cause an abortion (maybe I stock weird things in my kitchen cupboard, or read different books..) Really, all a woman has to do is look at a list of "Avoid these herbs in pregnancy because they cause miscarriage". I don't see the scenario most pro-choicers describe.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
dpr, evidence suggests that the back alley and coat hanger deaths were vastly inflated for political gain.
quote:In 1960, however, before abortion was legal, Mary Calderone, then-medical director for Planned Parenthood, wrote that trained physicians performed "90 percent of illegal abortions".
(Source: M. Calderone, "Illegal abortion as a public health problem," American Journal of Public Health, July 1960, 50 (7): 949.)
quote:You've probably heard that tens of thousands of American women died through illegal abortions before 1973.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, an early leader in the abortion rights movement and abortion provider for many years, tells a different story in his 1979 book, Aborting America:
"How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal?
"In NARAL (The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League), we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always "5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year."
"I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the "morality" of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?"
emphasis mine
quote:Feminist author and activist Lucinda Cisler, writing in the 1970 book Sisterhood is Powerful, put the number much lower: "Another statistic that is bandied about for all the right reasons — but with much unwarranted confidence — is the figure of 10,000 U.S. abortion deaths per year before abortion was legalized.
"A study made in the 1930"s, before the development of antibiotics made even illegal abortion less deadly than it used to be, came up with this number of 10,000 deaths; but it is no longer anywhere near the truth and has no place in any serious discussion about abortion.
"The most accurate estimates are that 500-1,000 deaths occurred each year because of septic abortions, and this range takes false reporting strongly into account."
Of course I'm not saying that 500 or 1,000 deaths isn't significant - I would prefer it no woman lost her life during an abortion (I'd prefer there weren't any at all, but if it has to happen, then I hate to see the tragedy compounded by the loss of two lives, not just one) However, it bears noting that the image of the dirty knife in the back alley was inflated in the public's mind and wasn't back up by the evidence. The vast majority of abortions occurred in doctor's offices, by trained physicians.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
