abortion classic or dud?

Limits are imposed based on how each state defines "viability", or when a fetus could survive outside the womb. Exceptions for health of the mother are in place to allow for abortion even past those limits.

I, too, agree with you, quincie. I will not allow myself to get started on that topic...

x-post Yeah, I've seen that happen. It happens more frequently then you'd think esp with young girls.

There are so many situations that can make a woman seek an abortion that late. I one woman who was married but in an abusive relationship. She hadn't known she was pregnant until around 3 mo and then it took her a couple weeks to decide that she had to terminate. She then had several these complications with medical clearance due to a heart condition and rescheduling so that she just made it in at 23 weeks by which point she had to undergo a saline abortion which is really intense procedure.

q: When does human life begin?

a: What is the smallest number of grains that can constitute a heap?

(Inconveniently, the insolent physical world refuses to reconstitute itself to conform to our words for it.)

one of the most depressing things in the most recent abortion debate in britain was the way the time period was floated as an entirely subjective, moral, flexible measure; while there should obviously be debate that looks for an appropriate measure between one week being o k and fifty weeks not being o k, there are still fundamental, natural stages that should dictate the limits. the brain of a foetus is not fully developed at twenty weeks, and will not continue to develop outside of the womb, and so viability becomes this skewed measure of potential life trumping quality of life. it seems kind of low key to concentrate on the small variations between states and their time limits, but a consensus drop towards the low 20s would be pretty disasterous i think.

the girls not knowing they're pregnant thing is complicated too - young girls who don't present, people who don't or aren't in a fit state to acknowledge the pregnancy, people who for whatever reasons (relationship, economic) wouldn't have access to a doctor until closer to the time limit - i know it veers close to the grey areas the article talks about, but targeting the tiny group of late term abortions as a way of decreasing the number as a whole really hits some of the people most in need of abortions the hardest.

xp enbb - right. the stats on the number of abortions that happen in this period - it's miniscule, but it'll really disenfranchise sections of society desperately in need of such services

Schlump, what you said there is exactly what I would have tried to say had I not been exhausted and about to go to bed when I last posted. It is also the reason that I'm 100% pro choice for any reason at any time. Thank you.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/etienne_saint/abortiondifficult.jpg

As evidenced in my previous posts on this thread this is a very serious issue to me and quite frankly Omar I'm offended by that.

sorry :(

Actually I'm not, it's awesome.

So is this ad for Baby Safe Haven brought to you by the people of my glorious state.

whew~

i will refrain from reposting the five second films pregnant woman clip though

lol @ "if you have a baby and don't know what to do"

man that rap gets downright mf doom in the middle

The Baby Safe Haven clip is one of my fav things ever. The fist time I saw it on TV my jaw just dropped. I knew that the program existed but I couldn't believe the ad wasn't a parody.

is it intentional that the baby is not seen? like was there research that if they showed the baby it would make people feel like that baby shouldn't be given up?

I think it's probably more because given the $5 budget they probably had they couldn't hire a real babby and people wouldn't feel so bad about whatever doll that girl is holding being given up.

ok i will repost it

It is a difficult issue. I've never understood why the sides are necessarily alligned as they are: That is, Democrats consider themselves champions of the powerless, which could be the basis for a pro-life position, and Republicans consider themselves defenders of liberty against government intrusion, which could be the basis for a pro-choice position.

Anyway, I'm pro-choice, but conflicted about it. I like the old Clinton line about keeping abortion "Safe, Legal and Rare."

No to take away from D Esq. serious post but

xpost omg hahahahahahahaha @ that video

i definitely understand how non-asshole, non-bible beaters can be conflicted on this issue but at the end of the day, (1) legal = safer, and (2) none of my business, so...

what really grinds my gears is that if the religious right were reaaally that concerned about reducing abortions, they'd maybe get behind proper sex education and making contraception readily accessible. but they don't, which makes me think it's not really about their concern for the unborn and maybe more about political litmus tests, sexism and discrimination. and so maybe FUCK them.

(1) legal = safer

i'm pro-choice in a lot of ways, with (2) - constitutional right to privacy way behind a lot of other good reasons, but sometimes i think it starts and ends with (1); that old line about the time for an abortion debate being when abortion is readily and safely available. abortion is an option and is going to happen, so government should accommodate this and act accordingly. actually rolling back the existing laws - which i know is perpetually in the balance, but apparently at the moment 51% of usa is pro life - would be retrograde in so many ways beyond controlling whether or not women have reproductive rights or not.

re: daniel - i know that it's been polarised since forever in the states, but i think the entrenched democratic/pro-choice, republican/pro-life split has been reinforced by the rise of the religious right; there's a way more logical pairing between beliefs and policy there.

Without the proper legal training but with some knowledge of the Supreme Court battles since Griswold vs Connecticut, I'm very curious about the line of reasoning that Ruth Bader Ginsberg, among others, follow: finding a right to abortion amid the right to privacy was a poor decision, and came too soon, at a time when state legislatures were about to allow abortions anyway. Thoughts?

(in other words, I'm open to the argument that justices like William O. Douglas went too far in pursuing a results-oriented jurisprudence)

"Ruth Bader Ginsberg, among others, follow: finding a right to abortion amid the right to privacy was a poor decision"

does she mean it's a tactical mistake or that it doesn't reasonably fall under privacy under any application?

Both. She was skeptical about locating a right to an abortion within the so-called right to privacy.

I need to find a link to the article in which she wishes Harry Blackmun had used the due process clause instead of the Right to Privacy.

nonono she wishes he had used equal protection, not the due process clause iirc

the due process "right to privacy" thing was kind of made up, perhaps a right to an abortion would be easier to ground in the equal protection clause but i'm not 100% convinced because of the way other EPC cases come out though. it's an interesting question, how stuff could have been different.

like around the same time geduldig v. aiello makes it look like it would have been impossible for the court to say there is a right to an abortion in the due process clause, that's what makes it hard for me to wrap my mind around. i dunno.

er i mean equal protection clause

i'm drinking btw

i think the tactical argument has a counterpart in what optimists are saying about obama and policies toward on gay rights: that they'll be easier to pass and built on stronger foundations if things progress incrementally rather than through turnaround legislation. i do not know if this is true of ginsberg's theory though.

Yeah: Ginsberg theorizes that state legislatures were headed in this direction anyway.

She has said, unequivocally, that Roe v Wade was a poorly decided and written decision.

i think many people, including pro-choicers agree that it was poorly written

having a kid really fucks up with your belief system with most everything but esp wrt abortion. noone warns you about the vicious wave of regret.

Yeah. Despite the fact that I hate how the pro-life movement uses post-abortion trauma as a platform now, I think that this is something that isn't addressed very well in general. The bottom line is that it is a serious issue and the feelings that one goes through afterwards are real and can be devastating.

I've counseled some women during post-abortion check-ups and the experience was heartbreaking for me. I can't even imagine what it was like for them tbh.

btw pretty sure i used to live with that dog up there, who is vexed by abortion

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/211/488863262_072763a23b.jpg?v=0

yay the return of fun afternoon with vacuum salesman guy

UH that is in reference to that picture, not the topic of abortion BTW

omg

LOL

still feelin bad for that dude :(

noone warns you about the vicious wave of regret.

You may have been warned, but did not regard it in the same way. Which makes sense. At the time you were faced with a wholly different set of circumstances and were working from a different pov.

Don't castigate yourself now. That sense of desperation you felt then was real enough.

I said this on another thread but I felt after mine that it was kind of right-wing propaganda that you were supposed to feel fucked up afterward. Things wld have been a lot easier if someone had said, "No, it's a complicated thing and of course it's okay and often natural to have volatile, unpredictable emotions. You're still a good person."

but apparently at the moment 51% of usa is pro life

i didn't know this : /

for some reason i was under the impression that with males it's about 50-50,
and 60-40 with females (in favor of choice)

I'd say 45% prefers it to be legal and rare while another 45% thinks it should be illegal with certain exceptions.

but apparently at the moment 51% of usa is pro life

i didn't know this : /

source

noone warns you about the vicious wave of regret.

You may have been warned, but did not regard it in the same way. Which makes sense. At the time you were faced with a wholly different set of circumstances and were working from a different pov.

Don't castigate yourself now. That sense of desperation you felt then was real enough.

― Aimless, Saturday, May 23, 2009 1:19 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

no i was warned it would happen directly after and it didnt. i didnt think anything of it after or for the next 15 years but when i did have a kid it was like holy shit. the gravity of it smacked me in the face.

I'm kind of surprised not to have seen anything on George Tiller's murder here. Fucking horrible.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hEsxTHOvCbc954sBWc59DuoqWxiwD98J7UOG0

"As one of a few doctors across the nation to perform third-trimester abortions, Tiller had survived an earlier shooting, his clinic was bombed, his home picketed. He hired a Brink's armored truck to take him to work for several weeks, and he frequently had the protection of federal marshals. He built a new surgical center without windows and was known to wear a bulletproof vest, sometimes even to church."

That someone would have to go through all that (and still get murdered!) because they preform a medical procedure is beyond ridiculous.

___________________________________________

Also, seriously PETA?

http://www.kansas.com/946/story/836204.html

Fuck you <3 E (a vegetarian for over 16 years)