There should be one, SINGLE restriction on abortion:

[annabanana]

[font color="red" size="8" face="Times New Roman"]If a woman doesn't want to have one, she can't be forced.[/font]

[darkangel218]

1. Your OP should read One, SINGLE, restriction.

[annabanana]

2. (good edit, thanks). . .n/t

[MrModerate]

13. Actually, neither comma is necessary in the OP . . .

But the sentiment is 100% correct.

[darkangel218]

14. I wasn't referring to commas. nt

[MrModerate]

19. All caps on "SINGLE"? . . .

Bear with me, I do this for a living.

[darkangel218]

21. No, you bear with me. I was accentuating a certain key word.

[postulater]

29. What is the reason for no caps on single?

That's an interesting tweak. Is it that it takes the emphasis away from one?

[MrModerate]

37. I have no objection to that -- the emphasis works quite well . . .

I was just trying to determine what darkangel's edit was.

(And now I've wandered through the edit history, I know).

[hobbit709]

3. As the bumper sticker said

"If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one"

[Paulie]

6. My bumper sticker on old car said

"If you're against abortion, get a vasectomy."

[DirkGently]

4. A National Reproductive Rights Act would make sense.

Just as with voting, we can assume any law many of these states attempt will seek to unconstitutionally limit rights. They can seek federal approval going forward, if they feel any "regulation" of abortion or birth control is needed.

[WovenGems]

31. Equal Rights Amendment

We couldn't even pass that due to fear of what giving full rights to women would do. Maybe we should try again.

[DirkGently]

51. This particular issue is perhaps the most out of control.

It's become some kind of Republican obsession -- regulating clinics out of existence, forced medical procedures pushing the "no rape pregnancies" myth, finding outrageous ways to humiliate and shame women.

Now they're putting the least defensible positions forward again. No exceptions for rape, health, or even life. What-s-his-schmuck in Arizona would make a raped child carry a dead fetus to term.

This is as despicable as it gets. It's Jim Crow for women, and I don't think it will stop until we stop it.

[WovenGems]

53. Chaff

The point of pushing for revival of the ERA is to separate the wheat from the chaff. This will force those who are against social justice to explain why in better detail than have so far.

[cali]

5. I disagree, and yeah, I know it's not an "acceptable" DU position

but I think they got it right with Roe in the first place.

[elfin]

7. I agree with you. Eom

[cali]

10. that's rather brave of you.

it's pretty much gospel here that the state has no valid interest whatsoever in protecting the fetus even if it's a 9 months gestation of a healthy viable fetus.

[MrModerate]

18. I'd say the state's interest . . .

Would be better served by making sure that the person carrying the fetus makes those decisions. And by ensuring that person has access to both proper healthcare and effective counseling.

All of which would be possible with a single-payer healthcare funding system.

Any abortion is a tragedy — as is an unwanted child — and since the most common standard of personhood is 'viability outside the womb,' the state ought to be fostering that standard through education and law. And maybe even postnatal support.

And not by dictating to women which stage in gestation it's going to suddenly step in and take personal responsibility away.

[cali]

23. first of all, as a woman who's had an abortion, I take exception with the pious

proclamation that any abortion is a tragedy. bullshit. Mine wasn't. I didn't want a baby and I didn't have to think or agonize about it. why the hell is my personal decision some sort of tragedy?


and yes, of course there should be single payer and yes of course pregnant women should have effective counseling, etc.

but sorry, the state does have and damned well should have an interest after viability. roe got it right.

[enough]

28. Thanks, cali, about the "tragedy" notion. Things have gotten to

where it's almost impossible to say that, but you have demonstrated that it isn't. It may be a tragedy in certain situations, but not by definition.

[MrModerate]

33. In the 'for whom the bell tolls' sense, I'd still maintain . . .

That any abortion is a tragedy, for me if not for you. If that's pious, so be it.

With regard to the state's interest after viability, how would you characterize that? Does it include forcing a woman to bring a fetus to term against her wishes?

[cali]

39. really? wtf? a few cells aspirated is a tragedy? fuck no, it's not.

and read roe and subsequent decisions flowing from it.

[MrModerate]

47. As I said, it's that way for me. Doesn't have to be for you . . .

And I certainly don't have any right or intent to try and make you think otherwise.

(For what it's worth, it's not that I consider a clump of cells to be a human being. However, I do consider that clump of cells to be a potential human being, and if that clump does not reach it's potential — for whatever reason — I consider that tragic.)

On the other hand, I don't agree with either you or Roe v Wade that the state ought to intervene in reproductive choice based on the trimester. Instead, the state should spend its resources on promoting the sentiment (shared by most people) that post-viable fetuses should ordinarily be carried to term.

And in the medical, counseling, and welfare aspects that you and I seem to agree on.

[cali]

48. it's not based on the trimester. go read roe. go read opinions flowing from roe

[MrModerate]

49. I'm reasonably well read on the subject . . .

and for the purposes of this discussion 'third trimester' or 'viability' are equally valid descriptions of the period during which, IMO, the state needs to continue to butt out.

Don't go all esoterica on me: do you believe the state's interest is ever served by forcing a woman to bear a child against her will?

[kestrel91316]

24. No, it isn't "gospel" here. But telling lies about how we on the left

want to be able to murder full term healthy fetuses IS a RW talking point, and that's a violation of TOS.

As you well know.

I honestly don't know how you have lasted here so long with your abundant RW viewpoints.

[cali]

26. bwahahaha. yeah. I have right wing view points. I'm constantly being berated here as a left wing

"hair on fire" radical lefty.

and I'm not talking about murdering full term healthy fetuses, genius. I'm responding to the op. I believe roe got it right. it's that simple.

I honestly don't know why you make up vile crap, honey.

[cali]

36. Proof that you are making shit up:

I post more about the vital importance of choice and whittling away of reproductive rights than any other person here: period.

and I sure the fuck don't hold any right wing views. Making shit up, dear, is not a liberal value. that is something YOU fucking do.

Chew on these links. well.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022461030\\
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022879312
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022683027

The left's disinterest in abortion rights.
There are exceptions, but the left, as a whole, is not putting up a cohesive and comprehensive fight against the whittling away of abortion rights.

I don't see it in Congress. I don't see it in Hollywood, which has put out lots of psas on bullying and gun control. On the state level, I've seen it only in NY and Washington state and less than a handful of municipalities. I don't see much of it on the web. I don't see it at DU.

The ACLU and Planned Parenthood are fighting, but without people in power standing up, we're in deep trouble despite those noble efforts.

Isn't this most basic constitutional right as important as marriage equality?

The left's disinterest in abortion rights.
There are exceptions, but the left, as a whole, is not putting up a cohesive and comprehensive fight against the whittling away of abortion rights.

I don't see it in Congress. I don't see it in Hollywood, which has put out lots of psas on bullying and gun control. On the state level, I've seen it only in NY and Washington state and less than a handful of municipalities. I don't see much of it on the web. I don't see it at DU.

The ACLU and Planned Parenthood are fighting, but without people in power standing up, we're in deep trouble despite those noble efforts.

Isn't this most basic constitutional right as important as marriage equality?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022597241


Why are women constantly trying to justify having had an abortion?

One story more dire and heartbreaking than another. Well, my story isn't heartbreaking. I wasn't in dire circumstances. I didn't become pregnant because I was raped or abused. I got pregnant because my boyfriend and I were careless. I wasn't ready for a baby. I didn't want to bear a child and give it up for adoption. I had an abortion. I did not feel guilty then. I do not feel guilty now. It was legal. It was my business.

Women should not feel they owe anyone an explanation as to why they had a legal medical procedure.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x592987

What's behind the enormous wave of state abortion restrictions? The Tea Party
<snip>

A wave of state-level activism against abortion rights has been under way for the past 12 years, but it picked up steam in 2011, following the birth of the conservative tea party movement. In the 2010 elections, tea partyers won big in some state legislatures. Though their main focus is fiscal issues, most are also social conservatives – many of them driven to enact abortion restrictions soon after taking office.

In 2011, 92 abortion restrictions were enacted in state legislatures, and in 2012, the number was 43, according to Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization on reproductive issues.

<snip>

For the larger context, she says, go back to the start of the last decade. In 2000, Guttmacher classified 13 states as being “hostile” to abortion. By 2011, half the states were hostile. To gauge “hostility,” Guttmacher identified 10 classifications of abortion restriction, and if a state reached four of them, it was called hostile.

I could post dozens, hundreds more pro-choice ops and comments of mine. Stop making shit up. It's contemptible.

[cali]

46. boy, does it ever figure that you lack the guts to even respond to my posts

proving you make shit up about me.

contemptible.

[Arkansas Granny]

9. If you are referring to abortion up to the point of viability,

I agree with you. Even then, I support exceptions for rape, incest and health of the mother.

[cali]

11. yes, and I support those exceptions as well and I support exceptions for

other reasons- like the fetus having serious abnormalities, etc.

[MNBrewer]

30. Whoa! Why exceptions after viability for Rape and Incest?

Because babies born of rape or incest are somehow "icky"? The logic for drawing the line at viability doesn't hold up if you are willing to ignore the viability of rape/incest babies.

[The Magistrate]

8. Hear Hear, Ma'am

[cali]

12. Do you believe a woman should be able to abort a viable, healthy 8 month fetus

if, for instance, she didn't realize that she was pregnant?

[darkangel218]

15. I didnt pay attention to the term

No, 7/8 months is not abortable.

[MNBrewer]

32. Not abortable? Why not?

Who made YOU the decider?

[darkangel218]

35. Nobody.

Just my own opinion, which is worth horseshit.

A baby past 7 months CAN survive, that's why I have the reservation.

[MNBrewer]

40. I'm unwilling to make a decision about abortion for ANYONE else

My opinions should have no bearing in the decision. The only two conditions under which my opinions should matter re: abortion are

1. I'm a woman
2. I'm pregnant

I'm neither. Women should be trusted to make their own decisions for themselves, for their own lives and health.

[darkangel218]

45. Right. But niether you nor I have any say in the big scheme of things.

We're just speaking our minds/hearts.

[annabanana]

55. I can understand your reservation if YOU were going to be responsible

for the issue for the rest of your life.

[azureblue]

16. the Bible says

the Bible says in three places, that life begins at first breath, this is, when the fetus can breath on its own. The Bible also says that a fetus does not become human, that is, does not receive a "Soul" until it draws its first breath. Do you wish to contradict the Bible and hundreds of years of Church policy? Be very careful how your respond, lest you hand yourself by your own "pro life" logic....

[cali]

20. I don't give a shit what the bible says. why on earth would I?

fuck, I hate stupid.

[darkangel218]

22. LOL!!

[tinrobot]

34. Thou shalt not kill? Love thy neighbor? Feed the poor?

The Bible's got some good stuff... too bad most people treat it as a bludgeon (both evangelicals and atheists)

I agree that first breath is a good standard.

[cali]

38. whatever. I don't use the bible as a science text. ever.

[MNBrewer]

41. The decision when abortion is acceptable is NEVER a scientific one.

It's a political, moral, legal, philosophical decision, but is definitely not a scientific one.

[cali]

43. viability is about science.

[MNBrewer]

44. While that's true

the decision of whether viability should be used as a cut-off point for legal abortion is a political, moral, legal, and philosophical question, not a scientific one.

[annabanana]

56. This is a good argument vs the fundies...

Whether you believe in the Bible or not.

[Initech]

59. Do we wish to contradict the Bible? Yes.

But I'll let the late, great George Carlin do it:

[ananda]

17. Re the 8-month q. It all depends.

First, if it would be physically and mentally safer for her to abort, yes.

If it would be physically and mentally safer for her to deliver the child,
then I would say OK with the caveat that she have complete decision
making on whether to keep it or not.

[HappyMe]

25. Agreed.

You shouldn't be forced to have an abortion, just like you shouldn't be forced to have a child.

[forestpath]

27. K&R

[totodeinhere]

42. I would add one more restriction.

Abortions should only be allowed in licensed facilities staffed by qualified professionals. But such facilities should be readily available for all who need them. It goes without saying that we should never go back to the days of back alley abortions or forcing women to leave the country to get a legal safe abortion.

[Nimajneb Nilknarf]

50. I think it's reasonable to prohibit unqualified people from performing any medical procedure.

So I disagree with annabanana.

[riqster]

52. My Single Restriction:

"No one but the pregnant woman shall have any say in the matter."

[babydollhead]

61. Abortion: Let the pregnant decide

agreed

[alp227]

54. MY BODY, MY CHOICE

The language to kill excess bureaucracy.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

57. One other restriction.

Republicans are forbidden from talking about it.

[Initech]

58. Make that two: crotchety old white men should not get to make laws governing women's health.

[Nye Bevan]

60. So let's have Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin decide (nt)

[mountain grammy]

62. It's the decision of the pregnant woman.

Late term abortions are rare and not worth discussing because it's nobody's business but the woman's and her reason is all that matters.
This is the power of the church and state getting into women's private decisions about reproduction and all about keeping women subservient. Women have no rights unless we have control of our own bodies.
And, don't forget: women of means have always had access to safe abortions. The laws only apply to women who can't afford to leave the state or country or go to their own private, upscale, OB/GYN for a "medical D&C.

[Egalitarian Thug]

63. Hear, hear. K&R