Is "Pro Choice" Actually "Pro Abortion?"

[slo]

I voted "no"

I would never get an abortion, or support an abortion if my girls got pregnant, but I don't feel that I have the right to take away that choice from other people. What they do with their bodies is their decision!!

I have also become very religious in my older years, and in the bible, it says those who judge will be judged. I try and take this very seriously, and therefore, I try very hard to not judge what other people do with their lives, unless it is directly affecting me and my family.

 

[themilesfamily]

Okay, here's my rant...

Roe v. Wade was decided based on the fact that 7 Supreme Court justices, while on one hand saying they didn't HAVE the expertise to decide when someone effectively became a "person" -- decided that an unborn child is "not a person" and can be aborted at any time prior to leaving the mother's body.

Thus the D & X procedure where the baby is removed feet first and only the head remains in the womb at which point a sharp object is inserted into the back of the head followed by a vaccum tube through which the brains are extracted. The key here is that the child hasn't TOTALLY left the mother's womb, so it is still legal to abort the child. They are still classified as a "nonperson" because the head remains in the mother.

(A D & X is more desirable than the alternative, which is removing the child from the womb piece by piece, as this can cause harm to the mother.)

The fact that a child can be killed merely because its head remains in the mother seems like slippery ethics to me.

1) If unborn children are not "persons" then explain to me the Unborn Victims of Violence Act which ruled that a child in utero (defined as a member of the species **** sapiens at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb) is a protected individual and if injured or killed is legally a crime victim.

There is a provision written into the bill that children who are unwanted by the mother and are aborted are not covered by this act. Explain to me how that makes sense or is consistent in any way? If a child is unwanted and killed it is just an abortion -- If a chid is wanted and killed they are a crime victim?

2) The Department of Health and Human Services, in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, provides health benefits for unborn children. In fact, unborn children are eligible for health benefits from the moment of conception. Eleven states have elected to provide coverage for unborn children.

So we are providing health benefits and protected legal status to unborn children -- but they are not "people?"

And the icing on the cake for me is what went down arround the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act." (This came up in the last debate.) This bill guarantees that any individual who is born alive -- has shown complete expulsion from the mother and shows signs of life -- is entitled to the legal definition of "person" and is thus guaranteed all rights under the law. Pro-choice advocates fought the passage of this bill tooth and nail.

The reason they fought against it is because some children survive abortion procedures and are born alive. These children are not given any type of medical treatment and typically live for 1-10 hours without medical aid or comfort care before the abortion is complete. Pro-choice activists hope to protect doctors and "mothers" in these circumstances.

BAIPA was passed in Congress after legislators heard testimony of children being left to die in abortion facilities.

In the end, though, Roe v. Wade will be overturned on constitutional grounds, irregardless of the moral issues surrounding it.

 

[perla75]

Yes, the opposite of anti abortion is pro abortion, however that has become sugar coated with the fraze pro choice.

Well, if that's the case than I don't understand why they call it "pro-life" There are many circumstances in which giving birth to that baby is not giving it a life.

 

[xoprincessmomxo]

Well, if that's the case than I don't understand why they call it "pro-life" There are many circumstances in which giving birth to that baby is not giving it a life.

Maybe it's pro-live birth under any circumstances.

Or the pro-too-bad-so-sad-you don't get a choice in the matter movement.

 

[stacyp9]

Just because someone supports an option being available to others, does not mean they are for that option personally. Labeling pro-choice supporters as pro-abortion is deliberately misleading.

I think pro-choice supporters should start calling anti-choice people pro-government forced births.

Hmm, as accurate as it it, it doesn't flow well does it. I guess I'll stick to pro-choice and anti-choice.

 

[perla75]

Because we believe a voice should be given to the unborn child. Where is the child's choice?

I can see where you are coming from, but do you honestly think a child would choose to live if it knew it was only going to survive a week & be in severe pain for that week because it was going to be born with a painful & fatal medical condition. The mother has the right to make that decision for her child and save her child from a week's long life of torture. Or do you think a child would choose to live if it knew it's birth was going to cause death to it's mother who is currently raising 3 other kids?

I am pro-choice-there are some circumstances where I feel that abortion would be appropriate. I am also "pro-restrictions" though & I am against abortions as a use of "oops I got pregnant" birth control.

 

[themilesfamily]

I am pro-choice-there are some circumstances where I feel that abortion would be appropriate. I am also "pro-restrictions" though & I am against abortions as a use of "oops I got pregnant" birth control.

Well, then you would be against roughly 1/2 the 1.21 million abortions done in the U.S. each year. Here are some statistics from the Guttmacher Institute.

Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex. 1% of women had forced sex.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Okay, here's my rant...

Roe v. Wade was decided based on the fact that 7 Supreme Court justices, while on one hand saying they didn't HAVE the expertise to decide when someone effectively became a "person" -- decided that an unborn child is "not a person" and can be aborted at any time prior to leaving the mother's body.

Have you actually read Roe v. Wade? Because it said said no such thing. It very explicitly gave the states the authority to restrict abortion after viability (so long as there are exceptions after viability when a woman's health/life is at stake).

From the decision:

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

 

[stacyp9]

Well, then you would be against roughly 1/2 the 1.21 million abortions done in the U.S. each year. Here are some statistics from the Guttmacher Institute.

Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex. 1% of women had forced sex.

Lets say that abortion becomes completely illegal. What should the punishment be for the women that have them, the people that perform them and the people that pay for them?

 

[themilesfamily]

Have you actually read Roe v. Wade? Because it said said no such thing. It very explicitly gave the states the authority to restrict abortion after viability (so long as there are exceptions after viability when a woman's health/life is at stake).

From the decision:

I beg to differ. They in fact did give the right to abort a child at any point that it is within the womb of the mother.

Here's the text of Roe v. Wade for anyone who wants to read it.

http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/

 

[chobie]

See, now you have learned your new thing for the day

Yes it really is a word, with a single definition of being in favor or abortion being legal.

I have been where you are. I once went back in forth on a dis thread about abortion refusing to call people who wanted abortion to be illegal pro-life unless they were also against the war and the death penalty and were for things that supported life once it was born like health care, welfare etc.

It went back and forth like this tiresome thread (i.e., like a Monty Python skit; "yes it is, "no it isn't).

In the end, all I did was irritate people and realize that people are allowed to label themselves what they want and a dictionary definition is not the law or the ultimate authority. Trying to force one side or the other into a specific label just makes this issue harder for people to discuss. This is an emotional topic and we need to be able to express our emotions about it , and one way is to call ourselves the term that we feel comfortable with.

Some people want to make this a black/white issue -either you are for abortion or against (i.e., "it's a logical argument, not an emotional one"). But, for most of us it’s a grey issue: there are many pro-life people who don't actually want to see abortion made illegal because they don't want women to die from illegal abortions and there are many pro-choice people who abhor abortion but still want women to be able to make a choice.

 

[smartestnumber5]

I beg to differ. They in fact did give the right to abort a child at any point that it is within the womb of the mother.

Here's the text of Roe v. Wade for anyone who wants to read it.

http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/

Uh, the quote I posted above is from that exact website. Did you think I was lying?

Please tell me how you square the quotation that I posted above with the claim you are making?

Can you please find and post the part of the decision which forbids the states from banning abortion after viability (even if there is a health/life exception)?

 

[perla75]

Well, then you would be against roughly 1/2 the 1.21 million abortions done in the U.S. each year. Here are some statistics from the Guttmacher Institute.

Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex. 1% of women had forced sex.

Well, I would likely be against a large portion of those statistics. Only detail missing is the % of fatal pregnancies-like the ones in my above example. I would be curious to see those statistics as well, just to know what the rate is of these unsafe pregnancies are in general.

That said, I would NEVER want it to become illegal. The thought of back alley abortions and other unsafe measures people would go through to terminate their pregnancies is frightening. That is why I am all for things that are legal with restrictions. I just don't think any moral issue is black and white-there are always gray areas.

 

[themilesfamily]

Uh, the quote I posted above is from that exact website. Did you think I was lying?

Please tell me how you square the quotation that I posted above with the claim you are making?

Can you please find and post the part of the decision which forbids the states from banning abortion after viability (even if there is a health/life exception)?

Smartestnumber5 -- it doesn't forbid the state from passing restrictions after the point of viability. But at all times it includes the an exception based on the health of the mother -- which has been interpreted to mean the physical or mental health of the mother -- and mental health has been interpreted to mean ANYTHING. Stress on the mother, the stress of raising a child... I would argue that under the findings of Roe v. Wade ANYONE can abort their child at any time within the womb.

Here is the passage you are referring to:

(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.

 

[Serena]

I don't understand what is so difficult to understand. The government has no right to decide for me what I should do. No one else does either.
Morally right, or wrong, it doesn't matter, it should have no bearing on the issue.
Keeping it legal, keeps it safe, and keeping women safe. The reason it was made legal is to prevent the women from dying in filty dirty rooms. The right of the women does overrule the rights of the embryo and fetus. And it will always be the case.

 

[Master Mason]

Well, if that's the case than I don't understand why they call it "pro-life" There are many circumstances in which giving birth to that baby is not giving it a life.

And if you read the thread I have said a few times that I agree with you, the pro life crowd has co opted that term when what they really are is anti abortion.

 

[Master Mason]

I don't understand what is so difficult to understand. The government has no right to decide for me what I should do. No one else does either.

That is simply not true, the governement tells you what you can or can not do all the time. You can't drive over a specific speed limit, you can't drive drunk, you can't take certain drugs because they are illegal, you can't get pissed off at your neigbor and take a hatchet to them, you can't even legally take your own life.

 

[perla75]

And if you read the thread I have said a few times that I agree with you, the pro life crowd has co opted that term when what they really are is anti abortion.

Sorry-no, I have not yet read through this entire thread.

 

[Serena]

That is simply not true, the governement tells you what you can or can not do all the time. You can't drive over a specific speed limit, you can't drive drunk, you can't take certain drugs because they are illegal, you can't get pissed off at your neigbor and take a hatchet to them, you can't even legally take your own life.

You are having fun with this aren't you.


I've never been good with words. You know what I mean, however you need to translate it to yourself, feel free.

 

[stacyp9]

That is simply not true, the governement tells you what you can or can not do all the time. You can't drive over a specific speed limit, you can't drive drunk, you can't take certain drugs because they are illegal, you can't get pissed off at your neigbor and take a hatchet to them, you can't even legally take your own life.

The United States government has no right to force me or anyone else to give birth. Period.

Also. As a taxpayer I have zero interest in paying for the prosecutions and imprisonment of women that might violate such a law. Not to mention the funds needed to build all the new prisons and funds to take care of the kids of single moms when you lock up mommy.