I would support some third trimester restrictions if, and only if, abortion on demand during the first two trimesters was made truly accessible to all women, no matter what their economic circumstances, and no matter where they lived.
I figure that, with proper access and proper information, most women should reasonably be able to determine within the first six months of pregnancy whether or not they want to have an abortion. The thing that mitigates against this right now, though, is that, despite Roe v. Wade, abortion is still unavailable in huge numbers of American counties, and many take all measures possible (zoning laws, other permit restrictions, social pressures, even intimidation) to keep it that way. While these sorts of de facto restrictions exist, i think it’s unfortunate but understandable that some women who want abortions can’t even make it happen until the third trimester.
But why does it seem to me like this is one of the only issues that we take this type of stand on? I mean, if you really think that abortion is wrong and it is murder, then how can you take that type of attitude?
How about this:
I know child pornography is wrong and I would be glad if it didn’t happen, but you know that no matter what the law, it will still occur. And better to have it legal and regulated where the children depicted can be cared for and well fed instead of being hidden in a sweat shop somewhere being forced to perform.
Sounds silly, right? Because child pornography is wrong and you’ll be damned it you allow any of it to happen, no?
Keep it civil. General admonishment to all participants. I know it’s a touchy subject, but if you can’t keep your GD (Great Debates) opinions out of it - just answer the poll and move on.
I voted unsure because I am uncertain of the morality. Politically, I think the government should mind its own darn business–neither prohibit abortion nor guarantee access.
If you have an argument to make, you aren’t framing it very well so far. Of course you should be able to smoke pot. Of course you should refrain from participating in a war you disagree with even if drafted. How are these even remotely debatable?
(They are, however, hijacks from the original purpose of this thread).
Perhaps. But it’s a rather larger issue that a woman who actually wants an abortion isn’t going to wait that long. Women don’t get late term abortions unless forced to it by circumstances.
How are they debatable? Well I guess not everyone agrees with you. That’s why they’re debateable. There are actual laws stating the opposite of what you think they should in regards to these two issues.
So that’s how they’re debateable. Just like abortion. People disagree with what you think is a commonsense position.
Telling someone their pro-choice position can analogously be used to argue for legalization of drug use is only an effective tactic if they don’t support legalization of drug use.
VarlosZ, that was always a universal “you”, but I can see that wasn’t clear. I didn’t intend to imply that it was your position.
See one.
I don’t believe there would be a significant increase, since, again, I don’t believe that many women think to themselves “Hey, I think I’ll try this pregnancy thing, see if it’s for me. Don’t really want a baby, so I’ll just abort it before I actually deliver. Consider this a trial run.”
But there *are *no women seeking to abort a healthy 39 week old fetus. So yeah, I concede that it would be a departure from current law, and that most people would think that it’s a bad idea, but I also think it’s a silly distracting hand-waving bugaboo hysterical sad excuse for a “point”, i.e., a red herring.
It’s on her position that there can’t be a debate. “It’s a woman’s right to choose [because nature has sicced PMS and periods on women], and in any case women are voting with their feet, demonstrating that they WANT abortion.”
She seems to think there is no debate but I think there is one.
Well, neither my father, nor myself, ever fell into the abortion is murder camp. It’s not the most moral of actions, but ranks with prostitution and weed, not molestation and murder. Ethically it’s harder, because you have to define what makes a person a person, and I’ve never seen a bright line definition, certainly not one that I’d feel comfortable drawing legislative lines with. Without such a bright line, it’s more ethical to allow for flexiblity than to restrict, better for an individual to be unjust than a government.
To put in your terms, abortion is more the skeevey guy jacking off to pictures of kids from the ads in the Sunday paper, while murder is still murder. The guy’s still gross, and to my mind, at least, immoral; I can’t really find any ethical arguement against the him though.
AHunter3 was pointing out that your tactic in this post only works if DianaG believes the consequences to her argument are undesirable or immoral. If one has no problem with you using drugs, pointing out that legalized drug use is a logical extension of their position on abortion is irrelevant.
I don’t think there would be a large increase, in absolute numbers, either. I’m sure it would still be exceptionally rare. Nonetheless, I think it’s beyond dispute that there would be *some *additional number of very late term discretionary abortions if there were no legal obstacles: the current legal situation forces women to decide early and contributes to the stigmatization of terminating advanced pregnancies – remove the legal restrictions, and some small number of pregnant women will wait until the last weeks to decide (or, more plausibly, they’ll change their minds and be able to do something about it).
So, of course it would still barely happen, but so what? Just because an allegedly terrible act (forced human vivisection, say) would almost never occur regardless of the law, that doesn’t mean that society can have no interest in forbidding it.
I voted legal in all circumstances, even though I bend conservative, and I do think that minors attempting to get abortions should have to have their parents notified. It’s only fair, since they are likely going to have to pay for it in one way or another anyway.
My wife just had one recently, and I’m not certain how I felt/feel about it. We’ve already had three kids and we got pregnant in spite of birth control. She has a career and our kids are all out of diapers (15, 7, 4) and she was adamant that she simply didn’t want to go through having another baby at this juncture in her life.
I had no choice but to support her in her decision, as many doubts as it may have cast on my mind (and possibly my immortal soul). It’s her body, and even though we are married, there was no way I could try to “force” her not to have one.
The expense of paying for it came at an inconvenient time financially, but again…not my ultimate decision.
You guys have no idea how hard it was for me to totally accept her decision. There’s still remnants of Catholic programming in my brain that convince me via nightmares about my other children dying untimely deaths that give me pause.
Then I wake up and live another day, and so do they. It’s still kind of disturbing to me though. That could have been my first daughter, instead it’s a bundle of cells and smegma rolling around in a medical bag somewhere. It’s hard to reconcile.
I actually do like the counseling action, as I think abortions should be readily available, but it should have included with it other things such as counseling and additional resources should the person need them as well.
I also feel it should be performed by professionally trained people, who are qualified to give them, and that there should be a system in place to monitor that no one is coming to any harm or the system is being abused in anyway such as by being denied abortions on the basis of some personal beliefs by the practitioner or any worries of someone being pressured or forced to abort. They’re unlikely possibilities to occur- but I tend to hate absolutes such as “Legal in ALL circumstances” because I’m sure someone out there would try to abuse such a system- I’d rather just have standards put in place to make it readily available and monitored for quality control, safety, and a system of additional resources available for someone who decided to go through an abortion- because while it may be an easy choice for some, there will be others who may struggle with the decision or have to abort a child due to a medical complication, and they should have access to something MORE than just an abortion. So in my mind, I’d put those things into the “with some restrictions” catagory.
Of course, I probably just tend to read way more into questions than most people.
This is a perfect Great Debates or Pit topic. Unfortunately, I can’t move it there because of the poll attached.
If you wish to continue discussion on this, you may re-open it in either Great Debates or the Pit. I’m closing this as it’s veered way outside of IMHO boundaries.
