who supports right to choose

[Wheetsin 714]

I've mulled this over in my mind a few times, interested in people's theories.

Just my thoughts:

Slippery slope at best. Unless you require DNA testing, and then have a bank with EVERY potential donor's DNA in it, which isn't going to happen, we can't even get thumbprints let alone someone's genetic code. Even then there's not necessarily a way to know who the father is. A woman could easily say "product of a one night stand, didn't get his name." I don't think you can safely DNA type a fetus, so there's no proof of paternity. So a man comes forth and volunteers that he's the father, you have to:

1) assume she went to a clinic he would know about, skipping cities would be an easy way around that, as would not telling him you're pg 2) mandate DNA matching, and who pays for that? Not to mention the difficulty in mandating it 3) have some way to prove it was the product of consentual sex, unless you'd advocate for forced term in incest/rape cases, and it's be really easy to say "he raped me, I just didn't report it" 4) need contingency for an impasse or 5) plan in place for an impasse, if either is against does it become an auto yes or no? If an auto no, and the woman is "forced" to carry, does the man share liability for extreme circumstances she may opt to take? Does the man have to assume full financial/custodial liability because of the mother's good faith effort to end the pregnancy? If delivery results in death, does the man become liable for civil or criminal punishment? etc. 6) I see a lot of spiteful men, and/or women, saying "no" just to make sure the other doesn't get their way, which doesn't necessarily put anyone in a better position 7) unwanted baby is born, power struggle continues, strain on social systems, etc. 8) you'd need a way for all of this to happen by X time, X being whatever term was considered allowable for the abortion, or it becomes automatic prolife legislation if it cannot possibly happen before, let's say, viability - and if DNA tests became mandatory, and someone had to privately fund them, this could be a very real scenario (the time factor was one of many significant glitches in Adams' bill).

[BJean 16]

As a matter of fact Jack, I think you are absolutely right. I do not believe that the government should fund abortions. I think that funding can be handled by the private sector. Although you do run the risk of only financially stable individuals having the choice. And we all know what the results of that could be.

As I've said many times, it is a very complex issue. I appreciate Wheetsin's and Jack's posts addressing that part of the issue.

[MrsFlipFlops 2]

Wheetsin- thanks for your response. It definately presented more complications to the idea than I hadn't previously thought of.

[pearlygirl 1]

Wow. Interesting thread. I suffer from infertility and with GREAT medical intervention finally became pregnant in the Spring of 2006. My pregnancy was rough. I had severe preeclampsia early in my pregnancy and spent 4 weeks in the hospital before my miracle was born at 30 weeks. She weighed 2 1/2lbs and was 14 inches long. She was ventilated, required surgery and fought for her life for many weeks. After two months, my sweet baby came home at 4lbs 15oz. She's 18 months now - PERFECTLY healthy and developmentally normal. A true miracle. I would not have an abortion, there is just no way I could with all that we've been through. Having said all of that, I am very pro-choice. I hate to think about abortion and wish that like me, people didn't view it as an option. But I am not naive. I know that there are people and circumstances where it just may seem to be the best option for some. Sad, really sad but I feel pretty strongly that it is a personal decision and should be left to be just that.

[drew05 20]

I'm new to this thread, but wanted to share my view on it.

I am a recently converted Christian (from Agnostic) and the strange thing about that is I still stick strongly to my beliefs in evolution and being pro choice. I do not think anyone, government or otherwise, has any right to tell anyone what to do in regards to their body. If they choose to follow God and the Bible, then let that influence their life. But just because the leader of our country follows it doesn't mean his beliefs should be forced on everyone else.

Yeah, I'm a liberal. But I am extremely open minded. I have a lot of conservative friends. But this is one thing I think should be left up to the mother. She has to live with her decision, not the government or any of us. Let her make the choice.

[green 6]

Reproduction is a lop-sided business. The male contributes a little sperm and the female is tied up for the next x - depending on the species - number of months in hosting the foetus until it is ready to be expelled and take its chances in the world. This is a very expensive proposition for any female mammal for she must obtain extra calories and Protein in order carry the pregnancy to term and then while she is nourishing, protecting, and training the infant animal. She must do this while remaining as safe as any male from predators.

Some of us would call this biology unfair. I am one of those people. I like sex as much as the next individual and certainly I took precautions with birth control whenever I indulged. When I found that I was pregnant an abortion was a no-brainer for me even though the man who contributed his mite was anxious that I have the child, as was, indeed, my own mother. I had an abortion as soon as I could arrange it (which was 7 weeks into the pregnancy) and still have no regrets 25 years later. Every woman must have the freedom to make this decision for herself for it is she who must carry the true burden of the pregnancy, she and not some other interested party. Pregnancy is a wonderful thing when those who want children can have them, a nightmare when motherhood is not desired, and the flipside, infertility, a tragedy when those who desire children find themselves unable to have them.

[Aphrodite1984 2]

Ok, so I just stumbled across this thread and I thought I would just share my two cents. I apologize if this has already been said (I didnt read all of the 126 pages of posts....sorry).

Abortions will happen anyways. Whether they are legal or not, they will happen. The only difference is that if they are legal, they will be safe. If they are not legal, then (pardon my frankness) women will use a coat hanger or throw themselves down the stairs or douche with bleach....and if these happen you will likely have a dead woman + a dead fetus. If they dont succeed in the abortion or suicide, then the baby will just be discarded after birth. Nobody LIKES the idea of abortion. Nobody has an abortion for fun. Its a difficult decision for a woman to make, but its important that women have options. And trust me, a safe abortion is a much better option than the others.

[BandedMomX6 1]

Abortions will happen anyways. Whether they are legal or not, they will happen. The only difference is that if they are legal, they will be safe. If they are not legal, then (pardon my frankness) women will use a coat hanger or throw themselves down the stairs or douche with bleach....and if these happen you will likely have a dead woman + a dead fetus. If they dont succeed in the abortion or suicide, then the baby will just be discarded after birth. Nobody LIKES the idea of abortion. Nobody has an abortion for fun. Its a difficult decision for a woman to make, but its important that women have options. And trust me, a safe abortion is a much better option than the others.

Hi, oops... sorry but that is a Myth. It has been perpetuated over the years. Not your fault, I used to believe that myth as well. I never supported abortion for it, but I thought it was true. Funny it was heard around the world loud and clear when everyone thought women were being killed through illegal abortions, but when it was found out to be a falsehood barely anyone got the news. I cut/paste the article I found on the net:

The Myth of Mass Back-Alley Abortion Deaths*

One of the most common arguments abortion advocates make in defense of legal abortion is that making abortion illegal will cause women to go to the "back alleys" and obtain unsafe abortions. They cite how thousands of women died as a result of unsafe abortions before abortion was legalized through the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. We already know legal abortions are not safe - they can and do cause women to lose their lives and harm women physically and emotionally. So let's address some other issues.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League, admits his group lied about the number of women who died from illegal abortions when testifying before the Supreme Court in 1972. "We spoke of 5,000 - 10,000 deaths a year.... I confess that I knew the figures were totally false ... it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?"

That claim of thousands of maternal deaths due to illegal abortion doesn't measure up when compared with other statistics. About 50,000 women of child-bearing age die each year -- from all causes combined. To suggest that 10,000 of these deaths were from illegal abortion would make that the cause of one out of every five deaths, or twenty percent. This would have made illegal abortion the leading cause of death among women in that age group.

What, then, did cause abortion-related deaths due to illegal abortions? According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, the legalization of abortion was not responsible for reducing abortion-related deaths. This discovery of antibiotics in the 1940's did that by providing effective treatment for infections.

The National Center for Heath Statistics reveals that before 1941, there were over 1,400 abortion-related deaths. Yet after Penicillin became available to control infections, the number of deaths was reduced in the 1950's to approximately 250 per year. By 1966, with abortion still illegal in all states, the number of deaths had dropped steadily to 120. The reason? New and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population.

Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicaps or deformities, and when the pregnancy jeopardized the life of the mother (all of which constitute only 5% of the abortion cases today). There were two notable exceptions - California in 1967 and New York in 1970 legalized abortion on demand.

Legalizing abortion should have eliminated some deaths related to illegal abortions. That is not the case. In the years from 1963-1969, there were an average of approximately 55 deaths per year due to illegal abortions. In 1970, after this initial wave of laws legalizing abortions, there were 109. Deaths from illegal abortions increased.

By the year before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision allowing legal abortion on demand in all fifty states, the death rate for illegal abortions had fallen to 24 in 1972 (with 25 additional deaths as a result of legal abortions). Now abortion was legal in all fifty states and back alley abortions eliminated with their alleged total of maternal deaths. In 1973 there should have been a sharp drop in abortion-related deaths if abortion advocates were right that legalizing abortion would make abortion safe.

Yet abortion-related deaths increased again with 25 deaths resulting from legal abortion in 1973, 26 in 1974 and 29 in 1975.

Some have claimed that the number of illegal abortion-related deaths were not reported accurately or underreported. Yet, when a woman was seriously injured by an abortion, she went to another doctor for care. The abortion practitioner was rarely involved at that point. The new doctor in many cases had to attempt to save the mother's life. In cases of maternal death, this new doctor was required to report, and falsification of the death certificate was a felony. Therefore, prior to legalization of abortion, it's safe to say deaths from illegal abortions were rarely covered up.

Yet, even if the case can be made that deaths resulting from illegal abortions were underreported, it is equally safe to say that deaths resulting from legal abortions are underreported. In Maryland in 1991, there were four women who died from legal abortions that year. None of the four were reported to the Federal Centers for Disease Control for its statistics. Whereas prior to the legalization of abortion a second doctor, with little or no reason to cover up a death for which he or she was not responsible, was involved in an attempt to save the mother's life; with legalized abortion the abortion practitioner is usually the one attempting to save the mother's life when the abortion threatens her life.

Other specific instances help us see how reporting for the number of deaths related to illegal abortions may be low: In 1977 an Ohio doctor noted that while the official statistics showed no abortion-related deaths in Ohio that year, he personally knew of two. If one doctor knew of two cases, how many were there really?

Abortion was legalized in California in 1967. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times in 1972, official records showed four legal abortion-related deaths in the entire country from 1967 to 1972. Yet a reporter for that paper uncovered three deaths only in Los Angeles in just one month in 1972.

A reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times uncovered 12 legal abortion-related deaths in that city in 1978. The government statistics show only 16 deaths for the entire country in that year.

Another important point is that many of the abortion practitioners performing abortions after Roe v. Wade were the same people performing illegal abortions. In the July 1960 edition of the American Journal of Public Health, an article by Dr. Mary Calderon, then medical director of Planned Parenthood, which stated:

"90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists, or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; ... They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is... Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians."

Here is a candid admission that not only are illegal abortions not being done by quack doctors but that the death rate from illegal abortions was "low." This flies in the face of claims of several thousand women losing their lives to illegal abortions and the claim that illegal abortions were performed by quack doctors and not by physicians.

As we can see, "Never again" never was. There were not several thousand women losing their lives due to illegal abortions performed by quack doctors. Effective medical treatments helped reduce abortion related deaths and the legalization of abortion never played a significant role (and never will) in affecting the numbers of women who died from legal or illegal abortion-related deaths. That women continue to die from so-called "safe, legal" abortions (perhaps in greater numbers than we know) is a clear indication that abortion is unsafe and hurts women - legal or otherwise.

*Sources: National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 1994. Hyattsville, Maryland: Public Health Service, 1995.

Abortion Surveillance 1985, Center for Disease Control, Table #18.

Induced Abortion: World Review 1983, by Christopher Tietze, The Population Council, p 103

Maternal Mortality Surveillance 1979-1986, Centers for Disease Control, M&M Weekly report July 1991, Vol. 40, No. SS-1.

[Aphrodite1984 2]

Hi, oops....sorry but I think you misunderstood my post. Not your fault. My argument is that making abortion illegal will NOT stop abortions from happening. In fact, your little article demonstrated that point quite clearly: "before 1941, there were over 1,400 abortion-related deaths...the number of deaths was reduced in the 1950's to approximately 250 per year. By 1966, with abortion still illegal in all states, the number of deaths had dropped steadily to 120." It doesnt mention how many abortions were performed, but this is just the number that DIED. So, this shows that MANY abortions were performed long before it was legalized. I am not arguing that millions of women are dying from "back-alley" abortions. Simply, there are two choices; a safe and legal abortion or an unregulated illegal abortion. And FYI, many women who are faced with an unwanted pregnancy wouldn't go to see a doctor for an illegal abortion. They would commit suicide, attempt an abortion themselves, or hide the pregnancy and kill the baby. These cases are unknown and unreported, and thus the statistics are impossible to determine. All I am saying is that women need choices, and although abortion is not the ideal choice its better than suicide, infanticide, or illegal unregulated abortion.

PS: I just felt the need to clarify my point since I think you misunderstood. I am not going to reply to this thread anymore because I am not on the forum to discuss abortion, but rather to discuss lapband issues.

[BJean 16]

Aphrodite: I appreciate your post very much. I was in the process of writing something when your rebuttal came up.

This article is proof positive that anyone can and will write just about anything. Of course the purpose of this article is obvious, although it makes absolutely no logical sense. There is no way that the population today can know exactly how many illegal abortions were performed when abortion was illegal and furthermore the exact number of deaths from illegal abortions could not be documented. But it is interesting to see how one group can skew the stats and make subsequent claims and sound believable to those whose beliefs are supported by such misinformation.

I don't blame you for not wanting to get involved here. I don't want to either, but it is just things like this that make me feel that I have to.

[BandedMomX6 1]

PS: I just felt the need to clarify my point since I think you misunderstood. I am not going to reply to this thread anymore because I am not on the forum to discuss abortion, but rather to discuss lapband issues.

Oh come on, stay and finish what you started.

I could pick up a bit of sarcasm in your email, but aphrodiet, I was not being sarcastic, however, when I re-read mine I could see that it may have been taken that way. Emails, computers, etc, is a kind of cold way to have a conversation, so much is lost in the translation.I have pro-abortion and pro-life friends. We just come out shaking hands when it is over. I hope you'll be able to do the same.

I hope that you will see that I am as passionate about my need to set what I feel is wrong, right as I can tell that you are. So I wanted to alert you that that was a myth. I am by nature one that defends the underdog, and in this argument, to me the baby is the underdog.:eek:

You write:

So, this shows that MANY abortions were performed long before it was legalized. I am not arguing that millions of women are dying from "back-alley" abortions.

But actually you are. When you say that if they can't get them legally they will do it illegally. That is millions. There are 4,000 reported abortions per day.

You wrote:

Abortions will happen anyways. Whether they are legal or not, they will happen. The only difference is that if they are legal, they will be safe. If they are not legal, then (pardon my frankness) women will use a coat hanger or throw themselves down the stairs or douche with bleach....and if these happen you will likely have a dead woman + a dead fetus.

Also, you wrote:

Simply, there are two choices; a safe and legal abortion or an unregulated illegal abortion. And FYI, many women who are faced with an unwanted pregnancy wouldn't go to see a doctor for an illegal abortion. They would commit suicide, attempt an abortion themselves, or hide the pregnancy and kill the baby.

Isn't that the same thing? An abortion just sounds like a nice neat medical procedure. (pardon my frankness, and yes I'm being sarcastic here) But whether a hanger is used or other metal object, it is all pretty gruesome. I dare say that you would want to read the following. "abortionist must first paralyze the cervical muscle ring (womb opening) and then stretch it open. This is difficult because it is hard or "green" and not ready to open. He then inserts a hollow plastic tube, which has a knife-like edge on the tip, into the uterus. The suction tears the baby’s body into pieces. He then cuts the deeply rooted placenta from the inner wall of the uterus. The scraps are sucked out into a bottle (see color photo in back of book). The suction is 29 times more powerful than a home vacuum cleaner."

Go to that site and read some more if you can stomach it. I can't, but I do because I feel if the babies have to give up their lives then the least I can do is be informed enough to speak the truth when I need to.

I have debated friends, some persuaded, but some just determined to defend their point, regardless of the facts.

No matter how you tidy it up abortion is murder, of the defenseless. It is our modern day birth control pill. If you think I'm wrong on this I can gather some statistics for you. And making it illegal WILL reduce the number of abortions because some people do recognize the law. This is proven with the few illegal abortions that were done prior to the millions that are done annually.

One of my dear friends used to work in an abortion clinic. She did it while in college. She said the majority of abortions were done by middle class working women.

Yes it is a tough decision, but it can also be a selfish one.

I'm really dumbfounded by your name, Aphrodite, which is the goddess of love and fertility isn't it?

Don't argue to just be right, argue to be correct. Here are some awesome articles that will enlighten you:

Women who regret their abortions

Former abortionists speak against abortion

Celebrities who oppose abortion and Roe v. Wade

Feminist, Prolife and Atheist

Feminist quotes(see some below)

"How quickly a 'woman's right to choose' comes to serve a 'man's right to use.'" --Juli Loesch

"[A]bortion is one result of the historic and deep exploitation of, and discrimination against, the female.... [W]hen this exploitation and discrimination end, the practice of abortion will also end.... It is a strange irony that other, pro-choice feminists embrace abortion and define it as a fundamental feminist right instead of seeing it as a fundamental and devastating exploitation. Such a feminist embraces and cooperates in her own oppression. Abortion, in the final analysis, works to the advantage of the exploitative male, not for the female.... Abortion is a male sexual fantasy come true." --Susan Maronek

[BJean 16]

Aphrodite: Let's bail. This is not a discussion. This is one person taking an opportunity to post biased information that is offensive in tone and obvious in nature. It is disgusting to have someone pretend that they wish to discuss a topic when in fact, they wish to beat people up with all manner of propaganda. No one who disagrees has a chance of having their feelings be known or respected in an exchange like this.

[gadgetlady 4]

This is one person taking an opportunity to post biased information that is offensive in tone and obvious in nature. It is disgusting to have someone pretend that they wish to discuss a topic when in fact, they wish to beat people up with all manner of propaganda.

Nothing BandedMomX6 said was biased or could be considered propaganda. It was all factual. You may consider it inconsequential -- or you may not WANT to see it at all -- but it's the truth.

[BJean 16]

It is anti-abortion propaganda all printed up in a neat package for the purpose of shocking people and getting support to make it illegal for women to have the choice whether or not to have an abortion. Just because you like its' content doesn't mean it isn't propaganda.

[gadgetlady 4]

Why is the accuate description of a medical procedure propaganda? Do you consider the factual discussion of what happens in a lap band surgery propaganda? Probably not -- because it doesn't involve the dismemberment of another human being and therefore doesn't offend your sensibilities or lead people to a better understanding of exactly what this "choice" is.