I don't see abortion as an all or nothing issue

[rockydem]

I see our country as inevitably heading towards the way it's set up in some European countries - where there are some varying levels of restrictions and rules regarding latter stage abortions, but early on it's completely a private matter, unregulated.

[liberalpragmatist]

1. Put on your flame retardant suit

I actually agree with you (putting mine on). Abortion is not an issue Americans are actually divided on. It's something the parties are divided on. The overwhelming majority, a stable majority has long favored general openness to abortions in the early stages (when nearly all abortions actually occur) but are against late-term abortions.

However, many abortion rights advocates see the issue as one in which if you give a little you'll be on a slippery slope towards banning all abortion.

[rockydem]

4. Exactly - you said it better than I did

I'm so sick of the entrenched groups on both sides running this debate.

[Wisc Badger]

9. Hey you said it as well

as it can be stated. I am a recovering Republican and I can see that Abortion is a tricky issue (especially in the second and third trimester). But I would hate to have to choose between my wife of my unborn child and the Govt should but out, it is a hard enough call as it is.

[CTyankee]

10. That is because

legislation the anti-choicers propose are so often designed to do just that: ban all abortions! A prime example is the partial birth abortion law. This is not a question of "reasonable" people coming together to get a "reasonable" outcome. The anti-choice people made up the partial birth abortion tag for just that reason: to sneak in a ban on all abortions. Period.

Ditto, in case you are interested, in getting contraceptives banned as well. No Roe v. Wade and no Griswold v. CT for them!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. Exactly.

They make the text of the legislation so vague that any abortion could be deemed illegal. That's the problem with it and that's why Planned Parenthood and NARAL view it as all or nothing.

[liberalpragmatist]

16. Right and I'm not in favor of the partial-irth abortion ban

That bill was unconstitutional. However, I do favor what many Dem senators including Kerry have long supported but have never articulated strongly - Barbara Boxer's "Freedom of Choice Act," which would basically ban all late-term abortions but with broad exceptions for the life or health of the mother to be determined by doctors, while affirming the right to choose for the first two trimesters without restrictions.

[Walt Starr]

2. Um, under Roe, that's how it already is

:eyes:

Why do people talk about this issue without being informed as to what is actually in Roe?

:eyes:

Here's some help, straight from the Syllabus of the decision, mthree layers of how restrictive the state can get with abortion:

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

More here at findlaw:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113

[rockydem]

7. Go read the last Harper's

There's a great article on this issue. In practice it's not quite like that.

[SlackJawedYokel]

23. You've referenced this article before

and I'm curious as to what exactly you're talking about.
I read it and it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know though let me say it was well written and accurate.

Cletus

[Jackie97]

31. Roe.

Unfortunately, Roe allows the states to regulate abortion rights in any trimester of pregnancy that they want to. Anti-abortion people have taken full advantage of that by pushing for twenty-four hour wait laws, counseling laws, laws on the so called right to be informed, parental consent laws, etc.

[Lerkfish]

3. Does a woman have control over her own ovaries?

or doesn't she? pretty much I feel its a right over your own body.
Either you have that right, or you don't. All the varying levels you speak of are minor details to that very basic question.

Can you force a man to allow his sperm to be used to father a child against his will? Can that be broken down into levels, or do you accord that control as a yes or no?

[rockydem]

6. Yeah but at some point that fetus becomes closer and closer to

a human being - in the latter stages I see a societal interest coming into play.

[Lerkfish]

19. That's where we disagree...its either a right or female slavery.

either you FORCE a woman to give birth or you allow her control over her own body.

no middle ground.

[Ron Green]

25. I'm thinking that black/white thinking here might not be the best

way to look at the issue. The state does indeed have some control over an individual's body, e.g. suicide being illegal in most places. To take such an "all-or-nothing" stand seems to me similar to what RWers do about patriotism and the "war on terror."

[Lerkfish]

26. yeah, that's right, compare me to a right winger....wtf is wrong with u?

[SlackJawedYokel]

27. Isn't attempted suicide illegal

to better faciliate medical treatment?
(I mean *suicide* can't be illegal, right?)

And as I said somewhere earlier, I'm of the opinion the state has an obligation to intrude on individual rights for Public Health issues and that's about it.
Since illegal abortion *creates* Public Health issues, the only avenue the state has, as far as I'm concerned, is to make abortion as safe as possible.

Cletus

[iverglas]

29. not in truly rights-loving societies

Attempted suicide has not been illegal in Canada for many years.

And as I said somewhere earlier, I'm of the opinion the state has an obligation to intrude on individual rights for Public Health issues and that's about it.

Very much agreed. The state certainly does have at least an arguable interest in preventing people in need of protection (the mentally ill, for example) from killing themselves, and an obligation to do so as part of the basic terms of the relationship between individuals and a modern society, in which vulnerable individuals are entitled to protection.

But the use of the criminal law to advance that interest -- to criminalize someone who is in need of protection -- is unconscionable.

The state has other and better ways of fulfilling its duty to protect vulnerable individuals. And people who are not in need of protection, people who choose suicide for entirely rational reasons, certainly have a right to do so, and to criminalize them for exercising that right is a violation of their rights for which there is no justification.

Arguing that abortion may be criminalized because suicide may be criminalized is like arguing that the Santa Claus parade may be banned because protesters may be banned from places where George W. Bush is appearing. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that.

But yes, even if criminalizing suicide attempts were the only way to protect vulnerable individuals, that would be no argument for criminalizing abortion. Women seeking abortions are not in desperate need of assistance to prevent them from harming themselves in a temporary and treatable state of despair.

The mere fact that both acts involve a person doing something to his/her body does not make the acts analogous. To the extent that they are analogous -- that they involve a person making a personal choice in circumstances in which they are not in need of protection -- neither is properly a matter in which the state is entitled to interfere, because both are exercises of fundamental rights in matters in which the state does not have an interest that outweighs the individual's interest.

[iverglas]

28. there's a great big difference

... between fundamental / human / constitutional RIGHTS and patriotism / the "war on terror".

And there is no similarity whatsoever between defence of women's rights and defence of rights violations.

And it is sophism to draw parallels between the two.

Rights are not something that anyone can "compromise" on. Your rights are yours; I cannot compromise on them. My rights are mine, and you may not compromise on my rights, nor may you compromise on matters that affect the rights of anyone.

Rights of the nature we are talking about are inalienable, remamber? They may not be given or taken away.

The exercise of rights may be limited. Liberty may be restricted. (Persons convicted of a criminal offence, in accordance with due process, may be imprisoned.) Speech may be restricted. (All that business about not shouting "fire" in crowded theatres, not lying in court, etc. etc.)

The exercise of rights may be limited where the limitation is justified. Justification is not a matter of personal opinion. It is a matter of the state demonstrating that it has a real interest that it has a legitimate desire to protect or advance, and that its interests outweigh the interests of those whose rights it seeks to limit the exercise of, and that the limitation it proposes is rationally connected, and proportional, to its objective.

Your Supreme Court in Roe purported to find that the state had such a real interest in what it called, variably, "potential human life", "the potentiality of human life" and so on. What the state needs to have an interest in is an individual woman's pregnancy, because *that* is what the state is legislating about when it legislates about abortion.

See the summary posted by Walt Starr. Your SC in Roe did not say *what* the nature of this alleged state interest in "the potentiality of life" etc. is; it simply found that it existed. That's crappy law. If the state were going to assert an interest in my reproductive processes and body, I'd want to know exactly what that interest was.

It then did not say *why* the state had some greater interest in "the potentiality of life" in the third trimester of pregnancy than in the first or second. It simply said that it did. Again, that's crappy law. And again, if the state were going to say that it had sufficient interest in my reproductive processes and body to take control of them away from me, I'd want a pretty good reason.

Rights ARE all-or-nothing. You have them, or you don't. If you have them, your exercise of them might be justifiably subject to limitations. But you do not defend your rights, let alone anyone else's, by offering to give a little bit, or a lot, of them away.

In the case of women's reproductive rights, you do exactly what you would do in respect of any other fundamental rights of anybody else: you demand that anyone who is trying to prevent you or anyone from exercising those rights justify that limitation.

And that doesn't mean saying "god tells me that abortion is wrong", or "I believe that life begins at conception". It means proving that the state has a real interest that it is legitimate for the state to want to protect or advance. And it means proving that the huge interference in the exercise of women's fundamental rights that denying access to abortion constitutes is the only reasonable way for the state to do that, and that the state's interest outweighs women's interest in controlling their reproductive processes and bodies.

And THEN it requires that the limitation be in accordance with due process.

And that's where I'm still needing someone to explain to me what sort of due process will be available to a woman who claims to need a third-trimester abortion to preserve her life or health, if her access to that service requires proof of that claim.

What authority, what tribunal, is going to decide that her need, her interest in avoiding risks to her life and health, are insufficient to outweigh whatever the state's interest in her pregnancy is? What authority is going to decide that it is worth the risk to her that she be forced to continue her pregnancy? What standards will be used to measure the value of her life to her, against the value of her pregnancy to the state? Who has invented the crystal ball that will tell us which women will survive their pregnancies and which women will not? And if we do not have that crystal ball, what authority is going to be responsible for sentencing the first woman to death when it finds her claim to need an abortion to be unfounded, and she dies?

Women's lives have a tad more value than that to me, and, I like to think, to my society. Actually, in my society, they do. There are no legal restrictions on abortion in Canada. None. No length-of-gestation limits or criteria, no requirements that women be propagandized before being given a healthcare service, no mandatory waiting periods. And that's exactly as it should be.

[Jackie97]

33. Here's my question about "all or nothing".

Most people who read my posts realize that I advocate unlimited abortion rights. I think that no matter how one "feels" about abortion in the third trimester, that it needs to stay between a woman and her doctor. Furthermore, there's no proof that the third trimester fetus is a person and even more proof is proving lately that it's not a person.

However, here's the question I'm having about this issue. It's this quote that makes me think about it more.

"Rights ARE all-or-nothing. You have them, or you don't. If you have them, your exercise of them might be justifiably subject to limitations. But you do not defend your rights, let alone anyone else's, by offering to give a little bit, or a lot, of them away."

Even though advocates of abortion rights have to push for all in order to get any of their rights at all, we know the politicians can't give it all to us right now. Too many people cannot get it through their heads that the third trimester fetus isn't proven to be a person and that third trimester abortions only are done on women whose life is in danger or who have a defected fetus anyway.

Most Americans are pro-choice in the first trimester (when 90% of abortions take place), but I normally have a hard time talking to somebody about the concept of allowing third trimester abortion.

All John Kerry did was say that he didn't sign the "partial birth abortion" bill because it didn't include exceptions for the life of the mother. For that, he was considered to be some kind of bloody baby killer who had to be voted against.

I have a slight fear that if our politicians demand all or nothing, we'll end up with nothing. We'll lose out on having all abortion legal in the U.S. just because most of America's too stupid to grasp the issues behind third trimester abortion.

I understand that abortion rights advocates have to keep pushing for all of their rights, but I have a problem with saying "or nothing". I'd hate for the 90% of women having first trimester abortions to miss out on their rights just because I insist that the less than one percent of third trimester abortions be thrown in there. I'm all for advocating that abortion rights be unlimited. I'm all for advocating the word "all". I guess I just have a fear of the use of the words "or nothing".

Not that any of this matters since most of the Democrats will only support abortion rights as much as they have to, and we'll keep voting for them anyway.

I guess my question is whether demanding the part "or nothing" is a good idea.

I guess I'm thinking more like a politician than like an advocate lately. I keep thinking we might have to comprimise things for a while to bring the US back to the center before we can go all the way and bring them to the left. Most of the US is already in the center. I'd just hate for them to go far to the right because they're too stupid to realize that leftists are not extremists.

I paint a lovely picture of Americans don't I? I'm not anti-American though. I've been thinking about how other countries are stupid as heck too. Or as George Carlin would say (paraphrasing) "You are all diseased!"

[choicevoice]

34. Lets discuss "societal interest"

First let me again say that restrictions are already in place for protection of the fetus in the latter stages.

The span of societal interest seems to last from the time they stick their nose into my uterus until the birth of the fetus when their nose is pushed out of the way. At that point societal interest stops. When societal interest takes the responsibility of the health care, rearing, feeding, education, etc of that human being then it can have a say.

[gumby]

5. Roe v Wade established trimester regulation.

Most states regulate abortion accordingly.

[Laelth]

8. Yet another abortion thread, rockydem?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1443499

How many threads do you need, really? :)

-Laelth

[rockydem]

11. It's all about my original Reid thread

[Laelth]

14. Man, I understand that you're upset.

I'm not exactly sure why. People had opinions about Reid, and they expressed them.

But starting all these threads is somewhat disruptive. If you disagree with posters in previous threads, why not respond to them instead of starting a new thread in the hopes that nobody will read what your opponents have to say?

just my 2 cents ... no offense intended.

-Laelth

[eaprez]

13. I have always thought a good compromise was

abortion on demand for first trimester then after that only if its medically necessary. However those who believe life begins at conception will never compromise that. I wonder why they aren't demanding an end to IUD's since they don't prevent conception. Is it because they know that would be viewed as EXTREME?

[Walt Starr]

17. THAT'S HOW ROE READS!

Please, go to Findlaw and read the decision. The first trimester is up to the woman, the second trimester allows more regulation and the third trimester allows even more regulation.

this is how Roe reads!

[rabid_nerd]

18. but it has been stripped by findings since

and "on demand" is the law of the land until birth.

Very difficult to restrict even third trimester (Planned Parenthood v. Casey)

[SlackJawedYokel]

24. Sorry. Not accurate.

Very difficult to restrict even third trimester (Planned Parenthood v. Casey)
Not true.
Most states have legislation restricting *elective* later term abortions.
No state can restrict *all* abortion and PPvCasey allowed states to further restrict abortion(forced waiting, etc.) while removing the trimester criteria and instituting an "undue burden" criteria on the states.
In fact, many states require a hospital stay and/or a second doctors opinion if the abortion is required past viability.

There are very few clinics that do elective abortions past 18 weeks, let alone into the 3rd trimester.

Cletus

[Jackie97]

32. The issue isn't that they would be considered extreme.

The issue is that they want to use IUDs so they can control how many kids they want, while trying to create laws that prevent emergency contraception and abortion for those who they think "should have to take responsibility".

In other words, the only moral "abortion" is "my abortion". They'll rationalize the whole thing away in their head.

[Cheswick2.0]

15. I think all men should be sterilized after freezing some sperm

then women won't have to get pregnant at all if they don't want. Then no woman will ever have to have the state telling her what to do with her body.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donheld]

20. That's exactly how it should be

No flame retardant suit for me. Fuck it.

[rockydem]

21. I think we're headed there

but it's going to be a bumpy painful ride...

[Jackie97]

30. Your prediction might be right.

However, it will take fighting from the "all" people to get us that far.

Eventually, I think that enough evidence will come in to prove that the third trimester fetus isn't a person and it will be legal on demand in all countries including this one (although it will probably come last here). I don't expect to be alive when this one happens.