Call me old fashioned....

[Wingnut]

And there is nothing brave about abortion. It's the coward's way out! Giving birth is courageous. Telling your parents you screwed up is courageous.

I think that some women who live with the memory of abortion for the rest of their lives would disagree that their actions were cowardly. It's neither fair nor accurate to make sweeping statements to this effect.

[Backroads]

I am pro-choice and always will be. That doesn't mean I agree with how other people choose to live but I support their agency to choose how they live. The Lord will be their judge, not I.

I do not judge these women, but I will work for laws and policies supporting a responsible culture. "Whenever" abortion laws work against that, in my view. The U.S. has plenty of policies and programs for supporting women in undesirable conditions and thus has no reason to claim "these poor women have no other way out" when it comes to abortion. Promote sex education, birth control options, but don't claim women need the right to abortion whenever they want.

[MorningStar]

I am pro-choice and always will be. That doesn't mean I agree with how other people choose to live but I support their agency to choose how they live. The Lord will be their judge, not I.

I will never support a person's choice to kill a full functioning baby. A line needs to be drawn and that's what Texas was trying to do. They weren't trying to make abortion illegal. There is no reason a woman should wait until halfway through pregnancy to get an abortion.

[Backroads]

I will never support a person's choice to kill a full functioning baby. A line needs to be drawn and that's what Texas was trying to do. They weren't trying to make abortion illegal. There is no reason a woman should wait until halfway through pregnancy to get an abortion.

Well-said. 20 weeks seems to be a fair timeframe for an elective abortion not based on medical problems. What these women are in favor of is no timeline at all and the right to have an abortion at any time during the pregnancy. You might say very few people would go that route. If that's the case, why have the option open if very few will use it?

[Just_A_Guy]

I will never support a person's choice to kill a full functioning baby. A line needs to be drawn and that's what Texas was trying to do. They weren't trying to make abortion illegal. There is no reason a woman should wait until halfway through pregnancy to get an abortion.

Touché.

Some choices are just plain despicable. That's why I also support legislation denying a woman's choice to use her body to burn down someone's house, and legislation denying a man's choice to use his body to rape a woman.

Someone explain to me again how dismembering 600,000 baby girls in utero per annum, with a rate over twice as high among blacks as among whites, is advancing either minorities' or women's rights?

Edited July 6, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

I found it interesting that even most of the "available on request" countries had a gestational limit of 12 weeks. And, what, we've people complaining about 20 weeks?

Not to mention the number of countries that say the procedure must be done in an honest-to-gosh hospital. Who'd a thunk?

[MarginOfError]

Well-said. 20 weeks seems to be a fair timeframe for an elective abortion not based on medical problems. What these women are in favor of is no timeline at all and the right to have an abortion at any time during the pregnancy. You might say very few people would go that route. If that's the case, why have the option open if very few will use it?

Except it isn't really. There are a few screenings performed around the 20 week mark that may affect whether a mother/couple continues the pregnancy or not. Drawing the line at 20 weeks prevents them from gaining that additional information.

This would be much of an issue if we had better screening, which may become available, but some conservatives are trying to prevent the better screening from entering health care for fear that it could lead to abortions. It's kind of an odd logic where they don't want it to happen after 20 weeks, or before if they don't like the reason for it.....

Also, I don't object to a 20 week thresh hold in general. I do, however, object the rationale for which 20 weeks was chosen. It's based on a pseudo-science claim that the child "feels pain" as early as 20 weeks. This claim is based on the idea that since brain activity is present, pain must be felt. The motivation behind this approach is that "brain activity" is also a rather nebulous concept in a developing fetus that can be pushed back as early as 8 weeks. If you can equate any brain activity to consciousness and the ability to feel pain, then you can eventually push the thresh hold on when to allow abortion earlier and earlier. It's bad science, bad reasoning, and bad policy.

I still prefer the viability rationale for establishing a thresh hold. Abortion should be illegal beyond the point at which medical intervention can reasonably be expected to preserve the life of the child ex-utero. Before that point, the host should get to make the decisions, not the state. And if we ever develop the scientific capacity to extract and grow fetuses outside the womb as early as 6 weeks, then you'll have my full support to say that abortion beyond 6 weeks should be illegal.

[MarginOfError]

Not to mention the number of countries that say the procedure must be done in an honest-to-gosh hospital. Who'd a thunk?

Why do you think this is necessary? For years, medical facilities have been trying to push as many procedures as possible to outpatient and ambulatory facilities. Much of the regulation that is being pushed onto abortion clinics isn't being applied to ambulatory surgical centers. If you don't need to have hallways wide enough for two gurneys to pass when you get your hysteroscopy, why should you need hallways wide enough for two gurneys to pass in the abortion clinic?

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't think I said it was necessary, MOE; just that other countries have imposed that restriction. It's not as crazy or oppressive or unprecedented as some would have us believe.

And it's frankly dubious for a political party that, just two years ago, was telling us our health care system needed to be more like Europe-to suddenly start getting wishy-washy when conservatives point out another way in which our health care system might consider emulating Europe.

If you can equate any brain activity to consciousness and the ability to feel pain, then you can eventually push the thresh hold on when to allow abortion earlier and earlier. It's bad science, bad reasoning, and bad policy.

I still prefer the viability rationale for establishing a thresh hold.

Absolutist abortion opponents could use your logic in reverse, in a "viability" analysis. What does it mean to be "viable"? If I control the definitions, I can use "viability" to justify outright murder of anyone, anytime, for any reason. Even if I confine myself to your definition, that's enough for me to justify vivisecting a fifty-year-old, so long as he has been deemed terminally ill. So why not just ban abortion entirely, now that we know where its proponents' reasoning might take us?

Before that point, the host should get to make the decisions, not the state.

It's not an alien. It's not a parasite. It's an embryonic child, and the woman's (in the overwhelming majority of cases) voluntary conduct put it there.

She already chose. Prospective dads can't get squeamish about what they've done and call a mulligan (either by forcing an abortion or nullifying their child support obligation), and they have the plain text of the thirteenth amendment in their favor. So why do moms get one (two, if you count relinquishment at birth) (three, if you count the morning after pill)?

Edited July 7, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

I am pro-choice and always will be. That doesn't mean I agree with how other people choose to live but I support their agency to choose how they live. The Lord will be their judge, not I.

Their agency to kill??? I'll judge their sin in a heartbeat! Not their soul, but their murderous destruction of a God-given life--I'll judge that evil deed.

[MorningStar]

How many women would choose to kill their babies if they saw them face to face? Why does the baby's location (in or outside of the womb) change the value of their life? It's not their fault they were conceived. Why should they have to pay for someone else's irresponsibility and suffer real, horrifying pain.

I've seen spiders treated better by the same people who argue in favor of this cruelty. I agree with PC. It's evil.

[Gretchen]

Not to be a partypooper, but there are many cases where a woman killed her child after it was born (sometimes years after), as well as women who just toss their baby in the trash can (life is not rubbish people!), etc.

I do not wish to return to a depressive funk, so I will let you all do your homework on this.

[Bini]

Still in the minority here, and still pro- choice.

[Suzie]

Well, I don't have much to say on the topic but let's just say that I am against abortion in general HOWEVER, I think there is a misconception about a lot of people who are either are pro-choice or went through an abortion.

Often times, they're painted us selfish women who do not care about anyone but themselves and it's quite different in a lot of cases. I know a few women who went through abortions for a number of reasons and the feedback I got was never like "It's my body, I did whatever the heck I wanted to do with it" but quite the contrary, it is a very heavy burden they carry even though that in a lot of these cases they had little or no other choice.

[Backroads]

Except it isn't really. There are a few screenings performed around the 20 week mark that may affect whether a mother/couple continues the pregnancy or not. Drawing the line at 20 weeks prevents them from gaining that additional information.

This would be much of an issue if we had better screening, which may become available, but some conservatives are trying to prevent the better screening from entering health care for fear that it could lead to abortions. It's kind of an odd logic where they don't want it to happen after 20 weeks, or before if they don't like the reason for it.....

Also, I don't object to a 20 week thresh hold in general. I do, however, object the rationale for which 20 weeks was chosen. It's based on a pseudo-science claim that the child "feels pain" as early as 20 weeks. This claim is based on the idea that since brain activity is present, pain must be felt. The motivation behind this approach is that "brain activity" is also a rather nebulous concept in a developing fetus that can be pushed back as early as 8 weeks. If you can equate any brain activity to consciousness and the ability to feel pain, then you can eventually push the thresh hold on when to allow abortion earlier and earlier. It's bad science, bad reasoning, and bad policy.

I still prefer the viability rationale for establishing a thresh hold. Abortion should be illegal beyond the point at which medical intervention can reasonably be expected to preserve the life of the child ex-utero. Before that point, the host should get to make the decisions, not the state. And if we ever develop the scientific capacity to extract and grow fetuses outside the womb as early as 6 weeks, then you'll have my full support to say that abortion beyond 6 weeks should be illegal.

I'm not against abortion for medical reasons. I agree with your idea of ex-utero care as a deadline. Yet at this time I wouldn't slap a date on any medical reason.

But a simple "I changed my mind"... yes, I think we need a line there.

[Backroads]

Still in the minority here, and still pro- choice.

May I respectfully ask why? I've never had a pro-choicer give me a more detailed answer than "it's the women's choice".

No judging and I will try to refrain from arguing, but I'm curious to understand the mindset.

[Just_A_Guy]

It's my body, I did whatever the heck I wanted to do with it" but quite the contrary, it is a very heavy burden they carry even though that in a lot of these cases they had little or no other choice.

Some of us would have been happy to educate them as to those other choices, or even have our educational materials placed within the abortion clinics themselves.

Why weren't we allowed to do that, Suzie? Why?

[Backroads]

I interpreted Suzie's remark (admittedly with no evidence either way) as referring to largely medical issues.

The only ones I take issue with (probably because they are mostly the ones I've personally interacted with) are girls/women who didn't bother with birth control and found a baby as well as any other option too inconvenient.

[Suzie]

I interpreted Suzie's remark (admittedly with no evidence either way) as referring to largely medical issues.

The only ones I take issue with (probably because they are mostly the ones I've personally interacted with) are girls/women who didn't bother with birth control and found a baby as well as any other option too inconvenient.

The examples I know from real life are medical issues and rape.

[Bini]

May I respectfully ask why? I've never had a pro-choicer give me a more detailed answer than "it's the women's choice".

No judging and I will try to refrain from arguing, but I'm curious to understand the mindset.

Backroads, I am more than happy to share my thoughts on it with you.

The abortion issue for me is really that simple: Women should have the right to choose how they live and what they do with their bodies. To reiterate, I don't always agree with how others choose to live, I don't but I also realise that people have agency. We live in an imperfect world with imperfect people, yet, The Lord continues to grant all of us our agency.

[Suzie]

Women should have the right to choose how they live and what they do with their bodies.

Well, the thing is...in my opinion, an unborn child is not "part of a woman's body". It is a separate being being developed but not part of her like hair or teeth.Therefore, in my view the unborn baby cannot really be considered the woman's property. Man, it's a tough...tough topic.

[Bini]

Well, the thing is...in my opinion, an unborn child is not "part of a woman's body". It is a separate being being developed but not part of her like hair or teeth.Therefore, in my view the unborn baby cannot really be considered the woman's property. Man, it's a tough...tough topic.

It is tough and for many reasons. Of course, there's the debate on WHEN it is a child and not just a thing inside a woman's womb. I still maintain that because it is inside the woman, in her body, what step is decided next is up to her. Again, that's MY opinion.

[Wingnut]

I agree with Bini, and I'll also add: I don't believe that one choice automatically precludes another.

[AnthonyB]

Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.

I just wanted to say maybe we should think of more and better ways to celebrate the choice to carry a baby to term, even if the circumstances aren't perfect.

[bytor2112]

YAY Texas!!!!