Depressing News for Liberals

This
http://www.nytimes.c...ND-ABOR.html?hp

really depressed me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way a supporter of partial-birth abortion, but I'm afraid that, the way the anti-choice (anti-choice and Pro-Life are two different things, I do acknowledge that) movement is going, Roe v. Wade may be overturned in my lifetime.

I'm well aware that this is a volatile subject (and I take full responsibility for the possibility of this post causing a flame war), but I'd like to hear other opinions. Are there any other Pro-Choicers out there?

This
http://www.nytimes.c...ND-ABOR.html?hp
really depressed me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way a supporter of partial-birth abortion, but I'm afraid that, the way the anti-choice (anti-choice and Pro-Life are two different things, I do acknowledge that) movement is going, Roe v. Wade may be overturned in my lifetime.

I'm well aware that this is a volatile subject (and I take full responsibility for the possibility of this post causing a flame war), but I'd like to hear other opinions. Are there any other Pro-Choicers out there?

There's a fairly common misunderstanding out there -- popularized by the bill's supporters and in the conservative media (which is a lot larger than you'd think!) -- on what exactly this procedure is and who it's for. "Partial-birth abortion" is not a medical term, it's a political term.

I could get into the specifics of the debate, but I'll refrain. I would encourage everyone to read a variety of articles from many news sources. The truth generally lies between the liberal left and the conservative right.

As for Roe v. Wade being overturned -- hopefully, there'll be a day out there when birth control will be easy, 100 percent effective and available to everyone who needs it, so that abortion won't be an issue anymore. I doubt that the issue will be overturned, since the numbers on both sides of the issue are about equal.

This
http://www.nytimes.c...ND-ABOR.html?hp
really depressed me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way a supporter of partial-birth abortion, but I'm afraid that, the way the anti-choice (anti-choice and Pro-Life are two different things, I do acknowledge that) movement is going, Roe v. Wade may be overturned in my lifetime.

I'm well aware that this is a volatile subject (and I take full responsibility for the possibility of this post causing a flame war), but I'd like to hear other opinions. Are there any other Pro-Choicers out there?

There's a fairly common misunderstanding out there -- popularized by the bill's supporters and in the conservative media (which is a lot larger than you'd think!) -- on what exactly this procedure is and who it's for. "Partial-birth abortion" is not a medical term, it's a political term.

I could get into the specifics of the debate, but I'll refrain. I would encourage everyone to read a variety of articles from many news sources. The truth generally lies between the liberal left and the conservative right.

As for Roe v. Wade being overturned -- hopefully, there'll be a day out there when birth control will be easy, 100 percent effective and available to everyone who needs it, so that abortion won't be an issue anymore. I doubt that the issue will be overturned, since the numbers on both sides of the issue are about equal.

I am aware that "partial-birth abortion" is not a medical term; however, as I don't know the medical terminology, that's how I refer to it.

As far as birth-control goes, I wholeheartedly support the use of it, even if it isn't 100% effective; if you're old enogh to do the deed, you're old enough to be on the Pill, or use a condom, or whatever.

But what about wome who are raped? How many rapists use condoms?

I freely admit that I am liberal, and that I read the New York Times because it expresses more liberal views. What truly worries me is that, if Bush gets re-elected, he will do his damndest to stuff the Supreme Court with anti-choice justices...there are at least four of our current justices who could, conceivably, die within this or the next presidential term. That's what worries me; I want women, not to have abortions, but to have the choice of having an abortion if they need to.

This
http://www.nytimes.c...ND-ABOR.html?hp

really depressed me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way a supporter of partial-birth abortion, but I'm afraid that, the way the anti-choice (anti-choice and Pro-Life are two different things, I do acknowledge that) movement is going, Roe v. Wade may be overturned in my lifetime.

I'm well aware that this is a volatile subject (and I take full responsibility for the possibility of this post causing a flame war), but I'd like to hear other opinions. Are there any other Pro-Choicers out there?

Actually, I think the pro-choice movement is going about this the wrong way. This is actually good news for them.

To start off with, although I am a conservative Christian, I am pro-choice... for early abortions. My *personal* belief is that once the baby has reached the stage where it can live on its own, it is immoral to kill it. However, for early pregnancy, I certainly am not going to deride a woman for causing medically what the body quite frequently does on its own when a woman miscarries.

Now, for what are called in the media partial birth abortions, the baby is perfectly able to live on its own. The actual procedure is so horrific to most people that even the most ardent pro-choicer has a hard time supporting it. I was once discussing it with a co-worker when another co-worker, who is one of the most liberal people I know, asked us exactly what it was. When we told him, he gasped and said, "That's infanticide!"

If the pro-choice movement were smart, they would be quiet about the whole thing. With this, the anti-abortion movement has lost their most potent weapon. People will eagerly support something that stops babies who are literally days from birth from being aborted, but it would take a whole lot more convincing when the fetus is the size of a lima bean.

This
http://www.nytimes.c...ND-ABOR.html?hp

really depressed me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way a supporter of partial-birth abortion, but I'm afraid that, the way the anti-choice (anti-choice and Pro-Life are two different things, I do acknowledge that) movement is going, Roe v. Wade may be overturned in my lifetime.

I'm well aware that this is a volatile subject (and I take full responsibility for the possibility of this post causing a flame war), but I'd like to hear other opinions. Are there any other Pro-Choicers out there?

Actually, I think the pro-choice movement is going about this the wrong way. This is actually good news for them.

To start off with, although I am a conservative Christian, I am pro-choice... for early abortions. My *personal* belief is that once the baby has reached the stage where it can live on its own, it is immoral to kill it. However, for early pregnancy, I certainly am not going to deride a woman for causing medically what the body quite frequently does on its own when a woman miscarries.

Now, for what are called in the media partial birth abortions, the baby is perfectly able to live on its own. The actual procedure is so horrific to most people that even the most ardent pro-choicer has a hard time supporting it. I was once discussing it with a co-worker when another co-worker, who is one of the most liberal people I know, asked us exactly what it was. When we told him, he gasped and said, "That's infanticide!"

If the pro-choice movement were smart, they would be quiet about the whole thing. With this, the anti-abortion movement has lost their most potent weapon. People will eagerly support something that stops babies who are literally days from birth from being aborted, but it would take a whole lot more convincing when the fetus is the size of a lima bean.

Well said! I agree with everything you have said. I myself heartily support this particular bill; however, if it were up to me (which, my being a grouchy 15-year-old, it is not) I would have re-worded the bill to make it less vague, so that it couldn't be used to prohibit other, safer and more common practices. Don't get me wrong-- I am vehemently opposed to "partial-birth" abortions.

However, the abortion issue hits very close to home for me. When I was seven, my mom began experiencing severe stomach pain. Eventually, after several misdiagnoses (sp?), it was found that she was pregnant. She'd had her tubes tied when I was born; however, something was wrong (I'm not very clear on what--I was only seven), and the fetus was growing in her intestines rather than her womb. Obviously, this was a bad thing.

The short and the long is that an abortion (I don't know if that's what it really was, but that's how we refer to it--the operations both result in a terminated pregnancy) saved my mom's life.

You can see why reproductive freedom is so important to me.

However, the abortion issue hits very close to home for me. When I was seven, my mom began experiencing severe stomach pain. Eventually, after several misdiagnoses (sp?), it was found that she was pregnant. She'd had her tubes tied when I was born; however, something was wrong (I'm not very clear on what--I was only seven), and the fetus was growing in her intestines rather than her womb. Obviously, this was a bad thing.

The short and the long is that an abortion (I don't know if that's what it really was, but that's how we refer to it--the operations both result in a terminated pregnancy) saved my mom's life.

You can see why reproductive freedom is so important to me.

Actually, your mom would have been okay either way. She had what is called an ectopic pregnancy, where the fetus implants somewhere in the abdominal cavity rather than in the uterus. The fetus cannot survive there, and also cannot survive being pulled loose and placed in the uterus, because it won't re-implant. In other words, the pregnancy is doomed and removing the fetus is considered a surgical procedure rather than an abortion. Even before Roe vs. Wade, this was perfectly legal.

You can see why reproductive freedom is so important to me.

You're confusing the abortion that is required for medical reasons with the one that can be had for no medical reasons whatsoever.

Anyway, my dissertation when I got my diploma in Law was dealing with the legal and moral view of abortion, and after all that study, I can safely say that, outside of medical reasons, I find no reasons for supporting such a practice.

As to "partial-birth abortion", when a friend from the US told me about the procedure, I was sure he was pulling my leg, until he showed me some photos. I had a hard time sleeping after that .

As to "partial-birth abortion", when a friend from the US told me about the procedure, I was sure he was pulling my leg, until he showed me some photos. I had a hard time sleeping after that .

I agree. I stumbled accross a Pro-Life website while doing some research...Eurgh...

To my knowledge, the overwhelming majority of RtL people believe in exceptions for life of the mother, rape, and incest.

So if that procedure was done to save her life...

Now, for what are called in the media partial birth abortions, the baby is perfectly able to live on its own.

In the words of William Saletan: "That's just false."

'The "Partial Birth" Myth' http://slate.msn.com/id/2090201/

Here is a very balanced Web page that gives information on this issue. It does describe the procedure, which is graphic, so don't go there unless you really want to know what it is. That's your warning:

http://www.religious...rg/abo_pba1.htm

I've been troubled by the lack of media fairness on this issue. Abortion is a tough thing to debate, because it's easy to twist someone's words from "I support a woman's right to have an abortion" to "I support killing babies." At no point during this debate over this procedure have I heard any reason for WHY a woman would need to have it done. It's made to sound like that a woman can just get up one morning at 8 1/2 months and say, "Gosh, I really DON'T want this kid after all!" Now, who can support that? No one.

So you have to ask yourself -- why would she do it? And it's heartbreaking to find out why. While I'm sure that the procedure has been performed for the reason I named, the majority of reasons for the procedure are purely medical -- the fetus died in utero, or is so severely deformed it either will die during delivery or soon after, or that delivery or a Caesarian section will severely injure or kill the mother.

Already two federal judges have blocked the ban because it does not take into account the mother's health.

Hey, don't get me wrong , the way the so-called partial-birth abortion was presented in the media, I also was against it, too. If we're just talking about infanticide, that's just wrong. But there's more than one side to the issue, and it's a pity the media isn't letting everyone know what all the sides are. As far as I can see it, when it's done for medical reasons, it's a medical procedure.

This is one of the topics I don't really like to discuss. It can morph too quickly into religious and political debates, etc. Folks can believe what they believe, and I'll continue to believe what I do.

Life is too short to get ticked off all the time.

Now, for what are called in the media partial birth abortions, the baby is perfectly able to live on its own.

In the words of William Saletan: "That's just false."

'The "Partial Birth" Myth' http://slate.msn.com/id/2090201/

I'm sure you've heard that anything can be proved with the Bible or statistics. The 'line' where a baby can live on its own is a matter of great debate, and there is no 100% point. And considering that the statistics on how often these procedures are performed and at what gestational level shifts whenever someone's filing cabinet gets pried open, it simply cannot be stated that this procedure is not used on babies that are perfectly capable of life.

I am split when it comes to abortion. I am pro-abortion (early abortion, not partial abortions or very late abortions) in the cases of rape or failure of contraceptions. If you tried to prevent getting pregnant, you shouldn't have to bear a baby. If you simply didn't care about it, take the consequenecs.
It is not a matter of the "morality" of killing an organism (since I don't see it as a human being then), but more the tries to escape the consequences of one's actions.

Of course, it's impossible to check whether someone got pregnant with the failure of a contraception or not, but I am simply speaking theoretically and what I think is right.

If you tried to prevent getting pregnant, you shouldn't have to bear a baby. If you simply didn't care about it, take the consequenecs.
It is not a matter of the "morality" of killing an organism (since I don't see it as a human being then), but more the tries to escape the consequences of one's actions.

I have a problem with this viewpoint. 'Having to give birth' should not be thought of as a punishment. If someone is immature enough not to take care of contraception, they certainly are not mature enough to act as parents. They can give the baby up to adoption, but it is always messy and risky business.

Knowing what kind of things bad parents can do to their offspring and what kind of emotional damage being abandoned by biological parents can do to a child in later life I have to think of abortion as a lesser evil when the fetus is not developed enough to be thought of as an independent person (I think a good place to draw the line is its ability to live on its own).

Hey, don't get me wrong , the way the so-called partial-birth abortion was presented in the media, I also was against it, too. If we're just talking about infanticide, that's just wrong. But there's more than one side to the issue, and it's a pity the media isn't letting everyone know what all the sides are. As far as I can see it, when it's done for medical reasons, it's a medical procedure.

I checked out the website you posted, and I have to confess I was floored by how much was, well, wrong. The situations they presented have other, better solutions than the pba.

While this is wandering way too far into TMI territory, I feel I should give my, er, credentials, since I'm not a doctor. I am however a survivor of two high-risk pregnancies, and I do not use the word survivor lightly. Because of my situation, I was given counselling by my doctor on what to expect if the worst happened, and all the things that could go wrong and what my options would be. And being the sort of person I am, I did a ton of reading on pregnancy complications.

The great majority of pregnancy disorders come to light during the second trimester. Things like gross birth defects and hydrocephaly are no longer surprises at birth. Ultrasound, amniocentesis, and a huge range of tests give doctors far more information than our mother's doctors had. A second trimester ultrasound is considered routine treatment, even for a pregnancy that is going alone normally.

For a fetus that is dead or has serious defects that make the mother want to abort it, there are other methods that are used. For instance, a cauterizing loop is inserted into the uterus and the dead fetus is cut into pieces for easier removal. This is far safer and less stressful than pba.

The last three situations in third trimester pregnancies go against standard medical practice-

The pregnancy is endangering the mother's life - smp is to deliver the baby at once. Even if the baby is premature, it will be safer outside than in the medically risky environment of the womb.

The baby has a gross disorder like hydrocephaly that makes a normal vaginal delivery impossible- smp is a C-section. But if you get to the point of birth and your doctor doesn't know your baby is hydrocephalic, do not walk, run to the nearest lawyer and sue his butt off for incompetency.

The website slams the safety of C-sections, but actually C-sections are safer in a medical emergency than a vaginal delivery. I know, I had an emergency C-section, for *my* health, not my daughter's, because my blood pressure spiked.

One is a bit hard to interpret -"The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her." I don't know if they mean permanently or just the length of the pregnancy. If it is permanent, then it would be like a life-threatening situation - immediate delivery. If they mean just for the pregnancy, well they can join me and thousands and thousands of women who do whatever is necessary for their baby's health. With my second daughter, I was medically unable to work the last three months, and spent the last two and a half weeks in the hospital before she was born just one day past premature.

I guess the point I am trying to make after this long rambling post is that a lot of things can go wrong with a pregnancy, but there are a lot of solutions. Doctors have a lot of tools at their disposal, and the site made it sound as though abortion was the only thing that could be done.

Hey, don't get me wrong , the way the so-called partial-birth abortion was presented in the media, I also was against it, too. If we're just talking about infanticide, that's just wrong. But there's more than one side to the issue, and it's a pity the media isn't letting everyone know what all the sides are. As far as I can see it, when it's done for medical reasons, it's a medical procedure.

I checked out the website you posted, and I have to confess I was floored by how much was, well, wrong. The situations they presented have other, better solutions than the pba.

...

I guess the point I am trying to make after this long rambling post is that a lot of things can go wrong with a pregnancy, but there are a lot of solutions. Doctors have a lot of tools at their disposal, and the site made it sound as though abortion was the only thing that could be done.

The whole point of the site is to give instances of when it *could* be used. It's a site about the one procedure, not all of the procedures that are available.

We could sit here and trade information and posts all day. We could debate the issue and offer up our opinions. But we aren't qualified to make the decision on whether any medical procedure should be banned. Neither is Congress.

(by the way, that was me up there posting as Harriet. I haven't logged in on this computer since "she" hosted that quiz. Sorry!)

Knowing what kind of things bad parents can do to their offspring and what kind of emotional damage being abandoned by biological parents can do to a child in later life I have to think of abortion as a lesser evil when the fetus is not developed enough to be thought of as an independent person (I think a good place to draw the line is its ability to live on its own).

There are two flaws here: the fact that you consider that a child with bad parents has no chance of living a life worth living so it's better to kill it while it's still in the womb, and that while it has no ability to live on it's own it's not a person but a "fetus". This definition also applies to a person that needs constant insuline injections to keep living, or somebody whose kidnies are not functioning properly and needs to go every three days to get hooked to a machine to purify his blood. They are not "independent", because their organism would not survive on its own without constant help.

There are two flaws here: the fact that you consider that a child with bad parents has no chance of living a life worth living so it's better to kill it while it's still in the womb, and that while it has no ability to live on it's own it's not a person but a "fetus".

Well, as I said I don't consider an early-pregnancy fetus 'a child', nor a person. Where do I draw the line? Silrana's suggestion of it being able to live on its own is one criterion - it makes it more of an independent entity. The other is having consciousness.

This definition also applies to a person that needs constant insuline injections to keep living, or somebody whose kidnies are not functioning properly and needs to go every three days to get hooked to a machine to purify his blood. They are not "independent", because their organism would not survive on its own without constant help.

They, however, are different from a fetus in that they have consciousness and personality. (A fetus that has any semblance of consciousness is, in my opinion, too developed to be aborted).

Well, as I said I don't consider an early-pregnancy fetus 'a child', nor a person. Where do I draw the line? Silrana's suggestion of it being able to live on its own is one criterion - it makes it more of an independent entity. The other is having consciousness.

Please define "consciousness". It can be argued that even a single cell organism has some consciousness (it feeds, it reproduces, it struggles to stay alive).

Also, what do you do with children that have to be kept in an incubator because they've been prematurely delivered? They also lack the capacity to survive on their own.

They, however, are different from a fetus in that they have consciousness and personality. (A fetus that has any semblance of consciousness is, in my opinion, too developed to be aborted).

How do you decide that the fetus has consciousness? Anyway, the medical opinion is that is impossible to decide when a fetus is only a conglomerate of cells and when it can be considered a human, so it is considered a human being since conception. Only the development varies. The medical community considers early abortion acceptable not because the fetus is not human, but because the procedure poses a lesser danger to the mother.