Skip to main content

View Diary: So, you guys have pretty much lost it, eh? (131 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sorry, no. (4+ / 0-)
    The fetus is a life.
    It's not a life until it is born, technically.
    The right would take away ALL abortion - at no matter what stage. And not all who are conceived are born - many conceptions end at early stages - some so early women didn't even know they were pregnant. Others never reach birth. There are millions of things that can go wrong.
    Self-righteous? Fuck that.
    I would guess you are male. I could be wrong. But since you give us poor lil' ol' womenfolk credit for having to do all the work, I'm guessing so.
    This is a VERY serious issue. Legal abortion - in all states, on-demand in all states, is necessary for women's reproductive rights and their health. It's not just semantics. It means a lot to have abortion available so women don't have to resort to wire hangers once again.

    Isn’t it ironic to think that man might determine his own future by something so seemingly trivial as the choice of an insect spray. ~ Rachel Carson, Silent Spring ~

    by MA Liberal on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:37:23 PM PDT

    •  Legally. (0+ / 0-)

      The fetus is not a life - legally - until it is born.

      Biologically, it's as soon as it hits the uterus.

      •  The whole discussion of "life" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wsexson, lineatus

        as relates to fertilized eggs is not really that easy to define. Is an ectopic pregnancy a life? No uterus involved. What about spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)?

        We end up on the short end of the stick because those of us who are pro-choice have to argue from a very complicated place with moving time lines. Pro forced birthers don't have to make a coherent argument at all, to them it's all "a baby".

        "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

        by high uintas on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:04:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Then again (2+ / 0-)

        the egg and the sperm were alive before they ever got together.

        The whole point of society is to be less unforgiving than nature. - Arthur D. Hlavaty

        by Alice Venturi on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:14:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's the potential of a life. (0+ / 0-)

        A bunch of cells in a woman's uterus might, might, become a living, breathing human being if it makes it all the way through the nine months without incident, which millions do not - and not just because of abortion. There are so many things that can, and do go wrong along the way. And many (I believe up to 50%) never even attach long enough to make a baby.
        And abortion MUST be available so a woman carrying a dead child can have it removed (it happens, but the right wants to force women to carry a dead fetus), or if there is a problem that might endanger the woman's health (which the right doesn't care about), etc.
        Democrats MUST keep abortion legal and ensure that any woman who wants or needs one can get it without interference.
        We simply cannot go back to the "wire hanger" era. EVER.

        Isn’t it ironic to think that man might determine his own future by something so seemingly trivial as the choice of an insect spray. ~ Rachel Carson, Silent Spring ~

        by MA Liberal on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:32:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, this is not correct. (8+ / 0-)
      It's not a life until it is born, technically.
      In this country, it is a life, at least to the extent that it has "interests" of its own, different from the woman who carries it, prior to birth.  And the State can protect that life, against the wishes of the woman who carries it, prior to birth.  Roe v. Wade said that it is a "life" before birth, at viability.   From Roe v. Wade:
      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 [p164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
      It pretty much is the case in this country that it is a separate life prior to birth.  The major question remaining is what benchmark we use to define when that happens.  Roe v. Wade set that benchmark at viability, a compromise that was perhaps unsatisfying to both sides.  
      •  One of the significant problems with (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        viability is that it is a moving boundary. We are getting better and better at supporting premature births. Children who would have died three decades ago now not only survive but thrive. I don't think we (either we as in DK or we as in the larger community) have thought through the implications of medical technology that can support viability at five or four months.

        Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

        by Wee Mama on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 07:17:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's a very sensitive and intelligent way (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wee Mama

          to express a thought that is dangerous here, the thought that there might be some limits to abortion.

          Many on the pro-choice side don't understand that Roe v. Wade itself restricted abortion during 2/3rds of a pregnancy.

          I agree with Bill Clinton's formulation:  abortion should be legal, safe, and rare.

          Source:  Abortion should not only be safe and legal, it should be rare. BILL CLINTON, speech at DNC, Aug. 29, 1996.

    •  No it wouldnt. (0+ / 0-)

      A lot of people here, including the most hardcore prochoicers, dont understand the issue and the legalities.

      If you decide a fetus is a life .. that makes it a state issue. Of course that has ramifications. But it doesnt change things the way you think.

      Because in roe v wade the supreme court pretty much.. made shit up in order to fashion a compromise. Roe v wade is very very shaky legally. It in fact recognises a right to privacy, extends that right to privacy to medicine, but on the other hand.. the exact rationale they used is not allowed to be carried further. The perfect examples: the drug laws. If you applied rowes principles to drugs the feds could make it illegal to sell them.. but not to use or possess them.

      As for your incredibly sexist "i guess your male" bullshit. When you sexists pull your heads out of your asses you'll finally Get that a LOT of women are prolife. Youre as ignorant, hateful and sexist as your counterpart on the other side.

      A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

      by cdreid on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 05:58:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It is a life, and it is alive. (0+ / 0-)

      Each of those cells is alive and performing the activities of life - moving ATP around, building organelles, dividing into more cells, etc.

      But as the cell argument goes, so what?  That E coli cell is a life too.

      So yes, that embryo is a life, it's just not a human yet.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site