Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Roe v. Wade-It scares me....
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
I'm the "for the Bush-Haters" post and I want a few follow-ups. First on abortion -- it is post-sex contraception. This issue wouldnt be as politically forceful except for the fact that white, middle class women need to use it to "fix" mistakes. If you look at the numbers, you'll most likely see abortions in dear Montgomery County rather than in the Trinidad area of DC. Moreover, the morning after pill is just the lastest "convenience" for those inclined to kill their babies.
On Iraq, all I can say is that several comments represent more liberal delusion. The middle east fight is historical (thousands of years) but the lasted chapter can be laid at the feet of the Europeans and especially the Brits who displaced the Palestinians by moving the displaced Jewish people into the occupied territory. This is a fight that neither Bush or Clinton started but neither finished. The real problem is that you liberals refuse to believe that its not America's fault. Radical Islam cannot co-exist with a free and pluralistic US. They dont tolerate religious and gender freedom, while we champion it. If you dont factor that into your analysis about the wars then you are lying to yourself. |
Anonymous
You mention Clinton not finishing the fight. But I think he reminded us of the only weapon that can finish it: “people the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.” |
Anonymous
Finally, a sane voice on this board. |
Anonymous
Yes, abortion is in some ways post-sex contraception and that is nothing to be ashamed of. No birth control is 100% effective. I got pregnant while using 2 forms of birth control. I am grateful that Roe v. Wade gave me a choice whether to keep that pregnancy or to have an abortion. I happened to have made the choice to keep it, and the fact that I was able to make a "choice" about that baby has enabled me to be a happy and good mother, neither of which I would have been if I had been "forced" to keep the baby in a pro-life legal environment. In a subsequent incident, I used Plan B emergency contraception when a condom broke while I was having sex w/ my partner. Thank god for Plan B, which would probably become illegal if Roe v. Wade were overturned, since it technically "aborts" a fertilized egg (if it exists) within three days of fertilization. I see no reason to treat these early pregnancies as any different than early miscarriages. BTW, did you know that many early pregnancies miscarry -- studies have shown that something like 31% of all conceptions miscarry and the true rate is probably even higher?! Sometimes the pregnant woman knows about the miscarriage, but many times she doesn't. It is true that the law allows later pregnancies to be terminated as well -- in some states up to 6 months or point of viability. I support that as well as there are many reasons for late term abortion. Sadly, I am personally familiar with a friend whose child grew in utero without any upper brain development -- a condition known as anencephaly. This means that the baby would never have had a quality of life beyond basic instinctual needs to eat/sleep/etc. Many of these babies die shortly after birth and few survive more than a few weeks/months. Unfortunately, she did not find out until extremely late in the pregnancy. She and her pro-life husband decided to terminate the pregnancy instead of birthing the child. Ironically, they called me for advice while making that decision, even knowing that I was pro-choice. Know what I told them -- "it is your choice. Some people birth anencephalic children and all of your family and friends will support you if you make that choice. Some families choose abortion. All your family and friends will support you whatever decision you make. You have choices beyond birth as well -- how much support to provide the baby, i.e. DNR orders or not, artificial ventilation or not, seeing the baby after birth or not, etc." Only when she went into the hospital for the termination a few days later, did she find out that the baby had subsequently died in utero. The whole situation was awful and absolutely nothing about the situation would have been improved if this couple had been prohibited from having an abortion. And, I don't support limiting late term abortion only to instances of serious fetal anomaly. I can think of many personal and emotional circumstances that would cause a woman to change her mind about a pregnancy, and I completely support her right to make her own choice about whether to continue a pregnancy or not right up until the point of viability. And, by the way, I do support both Sarah Palin's decision to keep her baby even knowing the baby would be born with Down's syndrome, as well as her daughter's decision to continue her pregnancy. What I don't support is federal or state laws that mandate such a decision (or even societal norms which pressure one into making the "right" choice, whatever society says that is....) So, flame away if my personal experiences make me some kind of "limousine liberal," but I have every confidence that the individual woman is smart enough, thoughtful enough and is best poised to make these complex decisions..... |
Anonymous
|
I wouldn't charactierize myself as liberal (extended family tends to be centrist dems or moderate republicans) and the idea of Palin stepping in when McCain's health fails is simply terrifying if you really are worried about terrorism. Sorry but I don't believe that being in a state that is closer geographically to Russia than the other US states means anything at all.
Obama is more likely and capable of building of coalitions with europe and others which would yield access to more information. Lets face it the army is overextended as it is and we have significant problems in Afghanistan because Bush/McCain diluted our strength by woefully under estimating the extent to which we would be in Iraq. (Interestingly Obama did object to going into Iraq and pushed for more focus in Afghanistan when it was not popular to do so in the begining something the other dem candidates could not claim. ) Even is McCain/Palin get the opportunity to invade every hostile country on day 2 of their administration the simply don't have the troops to do it. They will either go in underprepared losing american lives and the objectives or need to re-institute a draft. These two might actually bring back the draft... Obama and Biden will have more diplomatic options open to them then McCain/Palin. On Roe v Wade, this concerns me too. While I would personally keep a baby with Downs I would never force that choice on someone else. Here are some situations that put this into perspective for me. I know one couple who learned during amnio that their baby had a genetic condition not compatible with life. The baby would have died shortly after birth or have been kept alive artificially for a few weeks. In McCain/Palin's world this couple would have been forced to give birth, watch their small infant suffer extraordinary pain (trust me I have NICU experience you have no idea how bad some things can be...), and then die. I know another mother who had severe PE/HELLP twice. She was in the ICU and had a one micro preemie and her second baby died. She accidentially got pregnant with DH and they decided to terminate based on the risks to her health. Now terminating at that point was not required to save her life. Those complications don't kick in until 20 weeks and when they do it moves fast but again in McCain/Palin would have her risk her life by forcing her to continue pregnancy up until that point and possibly watch another baby die. |
Anonymous
I am not sure what kind of conversation you hoped to spark, but if you're genuinely interested in the other side, I think this is a conversation women should be more willing to have if it's true that we at least agree in the end that we should be aiming for fewer abortions. I do not think many of us want our daughters to have to make that decision. The abortion debate is like ships passing in the night -- I have discovered through sincere and civil conversations with my friends who are pro-choice that we just come at it from different starting premises and may never see eye to eye despite sincere efforts to understand one another on this issue. You see, pro-life women do not think about the issue as what they can or cannot do with their own bodies -- they treat the newly created fetus as something separate and distinct from themselves with value and something worthy of protection -- a human life. When you think of it that way, it is not a choice -- you could no sooner end that life than any other, and that life is worthy of protection by the government too, just as human life is in every other instance. Pro-choice advocates, on the other hand, view it as an extension of their own bodies, as something immensely personal, and about which they should have absolute freedom to decide what is best for them. In their view, having the government dictate that they carry a baby to term, regardless of whether they are ready to have a child is beyond the pale in a reasonable society, particularly when many argue there are far too many unwanted children who are not getting the love, support and care they need. I think both sides are compelling in different ways. Most people can certainly relate in one way or another to the fear of being faced with being pregnant before you're ready, or again, or at any point when it is not what you want in your life. And, of course, the ultimate burden of any unplanned pregnancy will fall disproportionately on women. Having an abortion is certainly not an easy way out for anyone, but it certainly seems easier than raising a child for which you are not ready for any host of reasons. I also think that anyone who has looked adoringly at an 8 or twelve week sonogram has had to face up to some doubt about the position that what they're looking at is merely an extension of a woman's body and not something precious and worthy of protection. And so the pro-choice movement has very wisely framed the debate as a women's issue and not about the developing fetus. To be honest, I am not sure how it cannot be regarded as a human life, but it is necessary to the pro-choice argument that it not be - at least for some period of time. I think those lines are pretty arbitrary and were drawn where it was abundantly clear that the developing fetus was too close to a baby not to be treated as one. I am not sure how you justify that the day before, or one week before the line, the fetus was not a human life or how we can ignore the fact that without interference it certainly would make it to that arbitrary line. I sincerely wish we would agree that a pregnant woman is carrying a separate life inside of her, and therefore cannot continue to make choices that take into account her life alone. I cannot personally understand how many people's hearts seem to bleed for the polar bear and any host of other vulnerable creatures, but not for that new human life, however small. I am pro-woman and pro-life. I have friends who had babies before they were ready, and would never take a do-over on that choice. I have friends who have had abortions because they were not ready, and most think they too made the right choice. I do not demonize women for their choices or thier views. I wish the pro-life viewpoint would prevail, but I do not see that happening. I do, however, wish at least that women's single biggest issue would not be to fight for the right to abortion, above and beyond all else. I know that even educated people can find themselves pregant unexpectedly, but unexpectedly does not mean mysteriously. We do make choices and they happen before you become pregnant. Why not focus there? And rather than calling one side religious fanatics and one side murderers, why not treat each other decently as we try to discuss this very difficult and important issue. |
Anonymous
|
I doubt pro-lifers will become pro-choicers anytime soon. This is often a deeply religious help view but the whole basis of our government was to break away from one religion forcing its perspective on another. Interestingly, Roe v Wade is constitutionally a privacy issue but the political split is really about religious vs secular government. I happen to be someone who has high risk pregnancies and trust me I risk more than just carrying to term. I can not imagine the government fueled by religious groups, perhaps different from my own, dictating whether my options.
|
Anonymous
Actually, I am a Democratic woman who has become much less pro-choice in recent years and it has nothing to do with religion. I support Obama but his opposition to the Illinois born-alive bill really troubled me. I'm not a Christian or otherwise religious. I experienced years of infertility, though, and when I did get pregnant I saw a lot of very early ultrasounds that showed awfully human-looking fetuses. Simultaneously, I noticed how many of my middle-class or upper-class white friends had repeated abortions with no real thought or consideration, not because they had high-risk pregnancies, like you, but because they forgot to use contraception or didn't "want to be bothered" by a child, in one friend's words. That was her third abortion; she was 32 at the time. I think there's a lot more to this argument than the stereotypical desperate teenager who might be forced into having a back-alley abortion. Both sides need to give some ground, I think. But I suspect I'm not alone in being a secular Democratic woman who is uncomfortable with the hard-line stances on both sides of the aisle. |
Anonymous
PP here. Some pro-lifers see it as a religious issue in addition to a moral one, but I did not base my view on religious views, and I would like to think respect for human life actually extends beyond the bounds of any one religion. Though separation of church and state was among the fundamental principles of our government, it was hardly the whole basis of our government -- and by the way, is not the least bit compromised by protecting life. Just because Roe v Wade, with Griswold before it, made up a right to privacy based on "penumbras" in the actual rights in the Constitution, and extended it to abortion, does not mean it actually is a privacy issue. And the political split is not just about religious vs secular government -- it's about treating the very least among us with respect -- something the pro-choice left purports to champion in every context but this. In any event, reducing the other side to religious zealots is hardly helpful in any meaningful discussion. I agree with the poster who said she does not agree with the extreme views of either side. I also appreciate some of the posts about very serious medical conditions that threaten the life of the mother or the baby and therefore render the consideration of whether to have the baby meaningfully different than a case where such considerations are not at issue. I think if you view it as human life, as pro-lifers do, it is sometimes philiosphically hard to admit of exceptions, but I think we are going to have to do so to ever reach some humane middleground. Similarly the pro-choice argument cannot cite the most extreme circumstances to justify a blanket right to abortion on demand. |
Anonymous
This is so true. They hate you for everything you stand for. So, think you're being "Fair" and liberal and "accepting"....but they hate you nonetheless. |
Anonymous
|
Its funny how most pro-choice people are also against the war in iraq and against the NRA. Isnt owning a gun a "Choice"? yet, most Dems look down on it so much. I wonder why you dont have the same thoughts about it being a choice to just do what you want, in regards to everything else and not just abortion.
|
Anonymous
Is it any more inconsistent than someone who is pro-life but pro-capital punishment, as is true of many Republicans? Life is life, no? Choice to do what one wants in regard to everything would be more of a libertarian point of view. |
Anonymous
| Hmm..So, why arent more Pro-Choicers also Pro-Capital Punishment? Since they're into killing and all. |
Anonymous
Beats me. 
|
Anonymous
All these supposed contradictions merely show that we are not Vulcans, logical by nature. Humans often hold contradictory views. In addition, political issues are generally complex enough that we often isolate what we feel is the salient factor and make our decision based on that. If someone else isolates a different factor, they may make a different choice, even while having the same basic principles. In the case of abortion, nobody wand to destroy fetuses, and nobody wants the government to control a woman's body (I hope). But which of those is "the point" of the argument, as in "No, no, you're missing the point"? |