Skip to main content

View Diary: Open thread for night owls: Roe v. Wade at 38 (376 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I know this might sound strange (15+ / 0-)

    but I find the confusion and reluctance about late-term abortions to be more troubling than a few freepers who said they think it should always be illegal. There has been a slow invasive creep into the conversations and medical decisions that fully autonomous, sovereign women make with their doctors and I believe that invasive creep is heavily informed by the squicked out feeling that Eric0125 described wrt late-term abortions but that could just as easily be a description of someone feelings about 2nd trimester abortion, 1st trimester abortion, or zygote stage abortion. Adding in the stories about a woman's sexual behavior, life choices, etc. and you have a muddying of the waters of reproductive freedom that has landed us here. Either a person supports state forced birth or they don't. There really isn't any middle ground on this.

    We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness.

    by Tookish on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 09:42:32 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Hear, hear. (9+ / 0-)

      "Reason is six-sevenths of treason," said one of his neighbors. "Intelligence is what the enemy uses," said another.

      by Misterpuff on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 09:45:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well-said, and co-signed. (8+ / 0-)

      I voted for the first option, too.

      "If Gabby Giffords can open her eyes tonight, maybe we can too."

      by jan4insight on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 10:06:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There sure is middle ground (0+ / 0-)

      There's a difference between a non-viable fetus getting superior rights to control the woman's body on the one hand, and a woman being able to control a viable fetus's chance to live outside the womb.

      No non-viable fetus should ever get to control an alive human being's body. That non-viable fetus, while a potential human being, ain't a human being yet, and couldn't be one, even if it left the womb.

      A viable fetus could be a human being if it left the womb. And so there are people who make that distinction - that the woman shouldn't have her life controlled by a non-viable fetus, but she shouldn't have the right to control the chance at life for a viable fetus.

      •  There are no women (4+ / 0-)

        who have abortions in the 3rd trimester of the type you describe as problematic. That is a scare tactic narrative designed to make us question the moral agency of women as a class.

        We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness.

        by Tookish on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 10:52:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Go back and read the poll question (0+ / 0-)

          Really, do it.

          Okay, now that you did it, where in the poll question does it put any limits on the rights of women to choose to have an abortion after viability for any reason whatsoever?

          Go ahead, go back and read it one more time.


          Yeah, that's right, it doesn't say that.

          We know that there are women who will choose to have abortions at that late date. There's a doctor in the Philadelphia area who got caught doing just such a "servive" for women just last week!

          Most late-term abortions are done now for good reasons.

          And that's partly because doing one for convenience sake after viability is outlawed.

          •  Do you have a link? n/t (0+ / 0-)

            We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness.

            by Tookish on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 11:09:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Gosh, I would have thought that everyone knew (0+ / 0-)

              About this doctor without me needing to provide a link.

              Abortions after the 24th week are illegal. However, Gosnell allegedly aborted and killed babies in the sixth and seventh months of pregnancy and charged more for bigger babies.

              •  So basically (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bushondrugs, tardis10

                there is one doctor who has proven himself to be sociopathic, we don't know why each of the women who came to see him chose him as a recourse for abortion, and the women were badly harmed in the process. We don't know if those babies were viable or what was wrong. We do know that this is extremely rare. So, it's sort of like the right wing stereotype of welfare queens. Were there ever examples of people gaming the system? Yes, but they were very very rare and it was far more common for people to not get the help they need or be stigmatized for needing it. Same here. The vast majority of women are in legitimate need of abortions and and the vast majority of providers do so with professional conduct and without putting fetuses or the human beings wrapped around them in unnecessary jeopardy. And, on top of it being very very rare, he will be prosecuted for the ways in which he violated those women and his oath as a doctor.

                I'm not trying to fight w/ you btw. I can see that you have strong opinions and so do I, but I know that we are reasonable people and can disagree about this.

                We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness.

                by Tookish on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 11:27:46 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, there's nothing to disagree about (0+ / 0-)

                  One can't disagree about FACTS!!!!!

                  Facts are facts. I don't have some facts on the topic of viable and non-viable fetuses and you have some different facts.

                  There is one set of facts about what a viable fetus is.

                  You clearly didn't know what one was!

                  You clearly didn't know that one person has been caught doing what you clearly and unequivocally stated doesn't happen.

                  You're the one who failed to realize that there were no qualifiers in the poll question.

                  You're the one who doesn't realize plain, obvious facts.

                  We aren't disagreeing about opinions. You're refusing to acknowledge facts.

                  So no, you don't get to "do" that. One can't legitimately disagree with facts!

                  They DO know that those babies were viable. That's why he's been charged with murder! A baby that's not viable can't be murdered! A baby that can't live outside the womb can't be murdered. Only a baby that CAN live outside the womb can be murdered.

                  This ain't rocket science. It baffles you, but it ain't rocket science. You need to stop thinking that you grasp these concepts, because you don't.

                  •  Why do you think that if one person did it wrong (0+ / 0-)

                    and badly, a pair of euphemisms, that is a reason to prevent all those who don't do it wrong and badly in that way, should also be barred? Aren't we past the point where one bad seed in one apple on a tree requires cutting down the entire tree? One bad kid in a family sufficient justification to punish and drive away the entire family. One bad soldier in a unit enough reason to condemn the entire army s/he is in?  Are you in position to prove that the evil one in Philly is the norm and not the exception?

                    •  One bad person in a city, nuke the city? (0+ / 0-)

                      Is THAT where we are?

                      I see someone who belongs in the 17th century Massachusetts-Bay Colony, where everyone was totally paranoid that their cruel and vengeful Old Testament God would go all Sodom and Gomorrah on their ass unless everyone lived a "Godly" life (as defined by the preachers and the Bible).

                      We know what that kind of repression led to in Salem in 1692.

                      If it's
                      Not your body
                      Then it's
                      Not your choice
                      AND it's
                      None of your damn business!

                      by TheOtherMaven on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 08:32:21 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  What are you talking about? (0+ / 0-)

                      Where did I come close to sanctioning all of Philadelphia?

                      I simply was pointing out that there are in fact women and doctors who will choose to get/perform late-term abortions for convenience sake.

                      The city that it happened in is totally irrelevant!

                      I swear, the conclusions that people leap to on this site.....

              •  And many of those women (0+ / 0-)

                went to that clinic as a last resort. Were abortion and birth control freely available in poorer neighborhoods, women would be taking advantage of them:

                Nearly 60% of women
                who experienced a delay in
                obtaining an abortion cite the
                time it took to make arrangements
                and raise money.

                In 2006, publicly funded
                family planning services helped
                women avoid 1.94 million
                unintended pregnancies, which
                would likely have resulted in
                about 860,000 unintended
                births and 810,000 abortions.


                How come the dove gets to be the peace symbol? How about the pillow? It has more feathers than the dove and doesn't have that dangerous beak. Jack Handey

                by skohayes on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 05:39:17 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  a viable fetus is a baby (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        if it can survive outside the mother (viable) then it is no longer a fetus and can't be aborted.

        We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness.

        by Tookish on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 10:53:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nope, you're wrong (0+ / 0-)

          I'm right.

          A viable fetus remains a viable fetus until it leaves the womb. Then it becomes an infant.

          A non-viable fetus, even when it leaves the womb, remains a non-viable fetus. It never becomes an infant.

          Viable fetus means that it can survive outside the womb if and when it leaves the womb.

          And just because the law states now that viability is a criteria, that's not what the poll question said.

          •  3rd trimester abortions (6+ / 0-)

            are what we're discussing. When a woman needs a 3rd trimester abortion, she is either in grave danger herself or the fetus is 1) not viable or 2) won't be viable either immediately after birth or soon after birth. It also often involves damage done to the woman having to continue to carry and/or bear the fetus due to the abnormalities that present. There are no cases of a perfectly healthy fetus that could survive outside the mother and the mother capriciously deciding to abort b/c OMG I have a cruise I'd rather take than change some diapers. The underlying assumptions you've got underpinning your beliefs are very problematic. If there is an example of 1 woman out of a million who is mentally ill enough to do what I just described and then find herself a doctor who is equally mentally ill to comply, they are hardly representative of the vast majority (99.99%) of all cases of 3rd trimester abortions in which the situation is an unambiguous and epic tragedy.

            And I don't need those details represented in that poll. That's why my first question was about what assumptions underpin one choosing the 2nd option. I explained my assumptions for my first choice and asked for others to share theirs. The poll is informative b/c of the assumptions one must make to answer it. And the assumptions are informative for how you see women and this issue as a whole.  

            We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness.

            by Tookish on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 11:17:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  There are plenty of cases of that happening (0+ / 0-)

              Yes, it's a small minority, but it does happen.

              And the poll question didn't limit abortions to that.

              Like I told you, go back and read the poll question.

              As many times as you need to in order to absorb and grasp it.

    •  no middle ground (0+ / 0-)

      then you must hate Roe vs. Wade then.

      Candidate Obama was right: When both parties serve the same side in the class war, voters may as well cling to guns and religion. Bitter since 2010.

      by happymisanthropy on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:07:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's no middle (0+ / 0-)

        ground about whether you support a roll back of the rights that already exist, that allow women to make this choice, or whether you support further restrictions that are essentially saying the state gets to have more say in what a women chooses to do with her body than the woman.

        The question isn't about whether there are complicated issues to consider. Roe considers them. They are addressed both legislatively and medically, when a woman works with her doctor. What this poll is about (and our subsequent conversation) is whether we should add restrictions. The difference between the first option in the poll and the second is the difference between Roe (#1) and a watering down of Roe (#2) which is what is happening before our eyes. And part of why that is happening, I believe, is that too many people confuse their moral squeamishness with thinking that that said squeamishness should have some role in the forming of public/health policy. It shouldn't.

        We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness.

        by Tookish on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 12:40:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  but there's nothing in Poll Option #2 (0+ / 0-)

          that would allow for any restriction beyond what's already allowed under Roe.

          Candidate Obama was right: When both parties serve the same side in the class war, voters may as well cling to guns and religion. Bitter since 2010.

          by happymisanthropy on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 03:50:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The value (0+ / 0-)

            of this poll, I think, was that it required us to use some assumptions to decide between #1 and #2. Those assumptions (the scenarios we imagined that affected whether we chose #1 or #2) are informative for how we view this whole issue of who should get an abortion, under what circumstances and, most importantly, who should decide.

            When I read the poll, I assumed that #1 was the only way that all bases could possibly be covered for whatever situation might occur (ones I could imagine and ones I couldn't b/c I haven't lived every life or heard every story). The #2 option was, I assumed for those who could imagine a situation that wasn't appropriate for an abortion and wanted to see that eventuality addressed. I'm not saying I'm right about the assumptions, I'm just naming mine. What were yours?

            We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness.

            by Tookish on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 06:28:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think it's more (0+ / 0-)

              how we read the poll question itself than in our fundamental assumptions.

              Option #1: NO restrictions on abortions
              Option #2: NO restrictions on abortions for the first two trimesters, possibly some restrictions in the third trimester

              Candidate Obama was right: When both parties serve the same side in the class war, voters may as well cling to guns and religion. Bitter since 2010.

              by happymisanthropy on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 11:24:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Agree wholeheartedly. n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

      by tardis10 on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 10:39:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (124)
  • Community (62)
  • Bernie Sanders (42)
  • Elections (39)
  • 2016 (36)
  • Climate Change (32)
  • Environment (31)
  • Culture (29)
  • Hillary Clinton (28)
  • Republicans (25)
  • Science (25)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Media (24)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Education (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Congress (16)
  • Labor (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site