Gallup Poll says majority of Americans identify as pro-life

[SWTXBelle]

It's not what you want to do to YOUR body - it's what you want to do to the unborn BABY'S that raises the question. Were it merely a case of doing something to your body - like piercing, or plastic surgery - no one, not even self-proclaimed pro-lifers, would care.

I don't like tattoos, but have no reason to prevent you from getting one. That analogy doesn't translate into a discussion about abortion, because there is a third party involved. If a woman has an abortion, her right to HER body infringes on the right of another - hence the term "right to life". As to the question of "Who am I to dictate . . .", well, you do it all the time through the laws of your country. We dictate how fast you can drive your car, when you can drink, at what age you can get a tattoo, when you can sign a contract . . . who are we to dictate? We are citizens who don't wish to live in anarchy.

[texas*princess]

article on Salon.com

Susan Hill, President of the National Women's Health Foundation, who knew Dr. Tiller for over two decades and referred girls and women to his clinic, said in a phone interview, "We always sent the really tragic cases to Tiller." Those included women diagnosed with cancer who needed abortions to qualify for chemotherapy, women who learned late in their pregnancies that their wanted babies had fatal illnesses, and rape victims so young they didn't realize they were pregnant for months. "We sent him 11-year-olds, 12-year-olds who were way too far along for anybody [else] to see," said Hill. "Eleven-year-olds don't tell anybody. Sometimes they don't even know they've had a period."

Since the news of Dr. Tiller's murder broke, personal narratives from people who used his services have been appearing around the Web. A commenter at the blog Balloon Juice told the story of finding out in the eighth month of his wife's pregnancy that she was carrying conjoined twins. "Conjoined twins alone is not what was so difficult but the way they were joined meant that at best only one child would survive the surgery to separate them and the survivor would more than likely live a brief and painful life filled with surgery and organ transplants." They chose to terminate the much-wanted pregnancy, rather than bring a child into the world only to suffer and die. "The nightmare of our decision and the aftermath was only made bearable by the warmth and compassion of Dr. Tiller and his remarkable staff." A commenter on Metafilter tells a similar story: "My wife and I spent a week in Dr. Tiller's care after we learned our 21 week fetus had a severe defect incompatible with life. The laws in our state prevented us from ending the pregnancy there, and Dr. Tiller was one of maybe three choices in the whole nation at that gestational age." He went on to share his memories of Dr. Tiller. "I remember him firmly stating that he regarded the abortion debate in the US to be about the control of women's sexuality and reproduction. I remember he spent over six hours in one-on-one care with my wife when there was concern she had an infection. We're talking about a physician here. Six hours.... The walls of the clinic reception and waiting room are literally covered with letters from patients thanking him. Some were heartbreaking -- obviously young and/or poorly educated people thanking Dr. Tiller for being there when they had no other options, explaining their family, church, etc. had abandoned them."

Links to older stories are also spreading on social media and blogs. A 2001 article originally published in Glamour relates the experience of Gloria Gonzalez, who learned that the twins she was carrying were gravely ill and threatening her own health. "As a Christian and a married woman who desperately wanted a child, I'd never given much thought to abortion. Like many others, I assumed that only women with unwanted pregnancies had the procedure." Yet after she and her husband consulted with several doctors and their pastor, "We knew what we had to do. Letting the girls die on their own didn't seem like an option, because we believed they were suffering while endangering my own health." The Web site A Heartbreaking Choice, which compiles stories from women who have chosen to terminate wanted pregnancies, has a section devoted to "Kansas Stories," from women who traveled to Wichita after receiving catastrophic diagnoses too late in their pregnancies to obtain legal abortions in their own states. The stories are painfully similar: A couple is thrilled to be expecting a baby, only to see a doctor's face turn grim during a routine ultrasound. Something is terribly wrong. And whatever the specific diagnosis is, the prognosis is essentially the same: If your baby lives, it will suffer constantly and die young.

The trauma of receiving such a diagnosis is only compounded by the difficulty of obtaining a late-term abortion. Writes one woman, "The reality is that finding a doctor to do this procedure in the late second or third trimester is almost impossible. For me, the reality was that at the most painful time of my life I had to travel out of state, stay in a hotel room and face hostile protesters in order to carry out this most personal of choices." Another writes, "I had to fly to Kansas to have the procedure done. It was a five-day out patient procedure that cost us almost $9,000 after all was said and done. I am hurt and angry at the state of Maryland for taking away my right to allow my daughter to die in peace ... I was appalled that Maryland did not have a quality-of-life addendum to the late-term termination law." Susan Hill says enduring the expense and stress of travel is the only option for most women who need late abortions in the U.S. "The restrictions under the Bush administration made it impossible for most states to allow abortions past 16 weeks. All the southern states are restricted tremendously. A few places in New York, if it was medically necessary, could possibly do it, but the paperwork was unbelievable, and there was no time left. That's why they referred people to Tiller. And for that he lost his life. "

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

It's not what you want to do to YOUR body - it's what you want to do to the unborn BABY'S that raises the question. Were it merely a case of doing something to your body - like piercing, or plastic surgery - no one, not even self-proclaimed pro-lifers, would care.

I don't like tattoos, but have no reason to prevent you from getting one. That analogy doesn't translate into a discussion about abortion, because there is a third party involved. If a woman has an abortion, her right to HER body infringes on the right of another - hence the term "right to life". As to the question of "Who am I to dictate . . .", well, you do it all the time through the laws of your country. We dictate how fast you can drive your car, when you can drink, at what age you can get a tattoo, when you can sign a contract . . . who are we to dictate? We are citizens who don't wish to live in anarchy.

But at the same time, we do not legislate what pregnant women can or cannot do to their bodies when pregnant. They can drink, smoke, do drugs, etc. This clearly will have an effect on the fetus, including death, birth defects, addiction, but we don't outlaw those either. Fetuses only have rights up to a certain extent.

My personal opinion about abortion is this:

First trimester abortions should be completely unrestricted.
Second and Third trimester abortions should be allowed ONLY for severe birth defects (completely up to patient/doctor discretion, so yes, if a woman wants to abort her Down Syndrome fetus, that is her choice!), non-viability of the fetus, rape or incest victims and severe risk to the mother's life, up to 27 weeks.
-Neonatologist can routinely save 27 week premies. The results at this point for any fetus younger than that age are so variable across the country that it is NONVIABLE in many areas. This week should change as our technology changes.
-Many severe defects are only fully evaluated beyond the point where the fetus is still first trimester.
-The life of the mother should ALWAYS come first. If the pregnancy is beyond 27 weeks, then labor should be induced rather than abortion performed to save the life of the mother.

My rationale for this opinion is that first trimester fetuses have not fully developed any organ systems and are essentially a ball of cells. This gives mothers of unwanted pregnancies a chance to decide what is best for themselves.

Second and third trimester fetuses have developed all of their organ systems and can be easily identified as babies. Termination should be a last resort at this point. If a woman can't get it together to have an abortion before this point, she's S.O.L!

[DSTRen13]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

But at the same time, we do not legislate what pregnant women can or cannot do to their bodies when pregnant. They can drink, smoke, do drugs, etc. This clearly will have an effect on the fetus, including death, birth defects, addiction, but we don't outlaw those either. Fetuses only have rights up to a certain extent.

My personal opinion about abortion is this:

First trimester abortions should be completely unrestricted.
Second and Third trimester abortions should be allowed ONLY for severe birth defects (completely up to patient/doctor discretion, so yes, if a woman wants to abort her Down Syndrome fetus, that is her choice!), non-viability of the fetus, rape or incest victims and severe risk to the mother's life, up to 27 weeks.
-Neonatologist can routinely save 27 week premies. The results at this point for any fetus younger than that age are so variable across the country that it is NONVIABLE in many areas. This week should change as our technology changes.
-Many severe defects are only fully evaluated beyond the point where the fetus is still first trimester.
-The life of the mother should ALWAYS come first. If the pregnancy is beyond 27 weeks, then labor should be induced rather than abortion performed to save the life of the mother.

My rationale for this opinion is that first trimester fetuses have not fully developed any organ systems and are essentially a ball of cells. This gives mothers of unwanted pregnancies a chance to decide what is best for themselves.

Second and third trimester fetuses have developed all of their organ systems and can be easily identified as babies. Termination should be a last resort at this point. If a woman can't get it together to have an abortion before this point, she's S.O.L!

^^^ I pretty much second all of this!

[SWTXBelle]

Actually, pregnant women have been charged with abuse based on their behaviors before the child was born (drugs, for example http://www.wspa.com/spa/news/local/a...charged/16838/ ) - and, for example, Conor Peterson's father was charged with his murder, even though he was still in utereo. There oughta be a law - and there is .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_...f_Violence_Act. So as a society we do believe some actions which impact an unborn baby are not only morally wrong, but legally.

As to TP's comment - as has been pointed out before, most of those who are pro-legal abortion aren't 100%, at all times, no exceptions, in support of abortion on demand, and most pro-lifers are not 100%, at all times, no exceptions, no abortions ever. Making an exception for a pregnancy which will result in the death of the mother is still pro-life - it just makes an exception for a situation in which both lives cannot be preserved. A life is still being saved - and weighing the two lives, the rights of the mother would seem to me to logically outweigh the rights of the unborn - but it is an exceptional situation. If it makes you feel better, call me anti-legalized abortion on demand. It is a logical fallacy to call it an either/or situation.

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

As to TP's comment - as has been pointed out before, most of those who are pro-legal abortion aren't 100%, at all times, no exceptions, in support of abortion on demand, and most pro-lifers are not 100%, at all times, no exceptions, no abortions ever. Making an exception for a pregnancy which will result in the death of the mother is still pro-life - it just makes an exception for a situation in which both lives cannot be preserved. A life is still being saved - and weighing the two lives, the rights of the mother would seem to me to logically outweigh the rights of the unborn - but it is an exceptional situation. If it makes you feel better, call me anti-legalized abortion on demand. It is a logical fallacy to call it an either/or situation.

If it's not 100% either way, I think that's just another argument against your "anti-abortion"/"pro abortion" terminology/thought process/belief.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

If it's not 100% either way, I think that's just another argument against your "anti-abortion"/"pro abortion" terminology/thought process/belief.

I've specified that for the purposes of the political discussion of the topic presented in the poll I meant anti/pro- legalized abortion - and my point is that those who apply those labels to themselves do so with some caveats. Again, not an either/or situation.

Using your logic, it would be most accurate to term my beliefs as "pro-life", because they spring from a desire to save lives, born and unborn. But since we are talking about the legalization of abortion, the most accurate term is anti-abortion,with the understanding that it is possible to be against abortion on demand but to make exceptions in rare and defined cases (i.e., life of the mother), just as someone might call themselves "pro-choice", but believe that the choice being talked about has some limits. Most pro-legalized abortion people I know have a limit to what they will accept as abortion on demand - they would not sanction an abortion at 38 weeks, for example. Does that mean they are hypocrites? Hardly. It means that we are talking about an issue with a great deal of complexity to it.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Actually, pregnant women have been charged with abuse based on their behaviors before the child was born (drugs, for example http://www.wspa.com/spa/news/local/a...charged/16838/ ) - and, for example, Conor Peterson's father was charged with his murder, even though he was still in utereo. There oughta be a law - and there is .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_...f_Violence_Act. So as a society we do believe some actions which impact an unborn baby are not only morally wrong, but legally.

Yeah...you can find a couple cases, but I've seen countless others that are never prosecuted. Shoot, most states won't even prosecute parents who kill their babies in car wrecks because they don't put them in car seats. And that's with definitive laws requiring the use of car seats.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Yeah...you can find a couple cases, but I've seen countless others that are never prosecuted. Shoot, most states won't even prosecute parents who kill their babies in car wrecks because they don't put them in car seats. And that's with definitive laws requiring the use of car seats.

Actually, I can found quite a few with very little research- and I can think of at least a handful of cases off the top of my head covered here in TX of parents who were prosecuted for the deaths of their children for their failure to properly secure them. Two weeks ago we had a case of a toddler who fell out of a truck. My brother is a police officer who ALWAYS writes up parents who he sees with unsecured children in their cars. I'm not sure how to find cases which weren't prosecuted - I would think they wouldn't be covered, and I guess I'm not searching using the correct terms. How did you find them? ( And yes, I realize we've gotten a little far afield here - but since AOIIAngel used the example of parents being prosecuted for a specific law, that's what I addressed.)

But in the final analysis, it doesn't matter whether or not the criminals are prosecuted - the issue is that as a point of law our society recognizes unborn children as having rights - limited rights, and rights which are subject (obviously!) to a great deal of moral and legal wrangling in order to support, but rights which do exist.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Actually, I can found quite a few with very little research- and I can think of at least a handful of cases off the top of my head covered here in TX of parents who were prosecuted for the deaths of their children for their failure to properly secure them. Two weeks ago we had a case of a toddler who fell out of a truck. My brother is a police officer who ALWAYS writes up parents who he sees with unsecured children in their cars. I'm not sure how to find cases which weren't prosecuted - I would think they wouldn't be covered, and I guess I'm not searching using the correct terms. How did you find them? ( And yes, I realize we've gotten a little far afield here - but since AOIIAngel used the example of parents being prosecuted for a specific law, that's what I addressed.)

But in the final analysis, it doesn't matter whether or not the criminals are prosecuted - the issue is that as a point of law our society recognizes unborn children as having rights - limited rights, and rights which are subject (obviously!) to a great deal of moral and legal wrangling in order to support, but rights which do exist.

I've personally seen the children come in dead because they aren't physically restrained. I did two years of general surgery residency at a Level 1 Trauma center. My attending, who was very active in national trauma surgery groups, was part of a movement to convince DAs around the country that yes, parents should be prosecuted for these cases. Few of the cases made it to courts because the DA felt the "parents had suffered enough already." The ones that do make it to court are the egregious ones like the one I personally witnessed- a morbidly obese woman was holding her 6 week old baby while driving. She got in a wreck and crushed her baby between the steering wheel and her body. Gruesome. Unfortunately, the parents had suffered enough on the countless kids I treated with severe head injuries after flying around a car unrestrained.

So far, the unborn really don't have any rights. See how many cases of crack mothers you can find that have been prosecuted. Babies are born EVERY SINGLE day in the US addicted to drugs. The state takes those babies away but RARELY goes after the mother.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Second and third trimester fetuses have developed all of their organ systems and can be easily identified as babies. Termination should be a last resort at this point. If a woman can't get it together to have an abortion before this point, she's S.O.L!

For most unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, I would agree with this statement. In the case of pregnancies where birth defects aren't detected until the second or third trimester, however, I can't really blame the woman for not "getting it together" enough to have had an abortion earlier.

It's easy, in conversations like this, to forget that it isn't just unwed young women who are having abortions. (General observation - not directed at you, AOII Angel.)

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Second and Third trimester abortions should be allowed ONLY for severe birth defects (completely up to patient/doctor discretion, so yes, if a woman wants to abort her Down Syndrome fetus, that is her choice!), non-viability of the fetus, rape or incest victims and severe risk to the mother's life, up to 27 weeks.
-Neonatologist can routinely save 27 week premies. The results at this point for any fetus younger than that age are so variable across the country that it is NONVIABLE in many areas. This week should change as our technology changes.
-Many severe defects are only fully evaluated beyond the point where the fetus is still first trimester.
-The life of the mother should ALWAYS come first. If the pregnancy is beyond 27 weeks, then labor should be induced rather than abortion performed to save the life of the mother.

Originally Posted by SydneyK

For most unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, I would agree with this statement. In the case of pregnancies where birth defects aren't detected until the second or third trimester, however, I can't really blame the woman for not "getting it together" enough to have had an abortion earlier.

It's easy, in conversations like this, to forget that it isn't just unwed young women who are having abortions. (General observation - not directed at you, AOII Angel.)

I think you missed the part of my post that I quoted above, Sydney K.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

It's not what you want to do to YOUR body - it's what you want to do to the unborn BABY'S that raises the question. Were it merely a case of doing something to your body - like piercing, or plastic surgery - no one, not even self-proclaimed pro-lifers, would care.

I don't like tattoos, but have no reason to prevent you from getting one. That analogy doesn't translate into a discussion about abortion, because there is a third party involved. If a woman has an abortion, her right to HER body infringes on the right of another - hence the term "right to life". As to the question of "Who am I to dictate . . .", well, you do it all the time through the laws of your country. We dictate how fast you can drive your car, when you can drink, at what age you can get a tattoo, when you can sign a contract . . . who are we to dictate? We are citizens who don't wish to live in anarchy.

that "baby" is still dependant on that woman's body for "life." she should be able to do what she wants to do with it. you act as if though pepple are getting abortions at the same rate as people speed or get a tatoo. your logic is WAY off.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by starang21

that "baby" is still dependant on that woman's body for "life." she should be able to do what she wants to do with it. you act as if though pepple are getting abortions at the same rate as people speed or get a tatoo. your logic is WAY off.

Never did I say anything about the rate of "pepple"(sic) getting abortions nor did I equate abortions to tattoos. I used tattoos as an example of something you could do to your body which would not impact anyone else. Let me point out that society does in fact tell you what you can do with your body all the time. You cannot get a tattoo before a certain age, you cannot take certain drugs without a doctor's prescription, you cannot drive if you have ingested a certain amount of alcohol, you cannot chose to take illegal drugs, and there are even laws against suicide. So, as a society we have decided that there are some things you cannot do to your body.

You are reacting emotionally, not logically. My logic is not WAY off - your understanding is.( For handy reference - http://www.logicalfallacies.info/)

Once more - the argument that "It is my body - society has no right to tell me what to do with it" is predicated on the belief that it is only a woman's body being discussed. It is not - there is another being in the discussion. If being "dependant"( sic) meant the baby had no rights at all, we would not have the federal law which does in fact give the unborn some limited rights.

The fundamental question which has to be grappled with is at what point does the right of a fetus to continue to grow and develop override the right of a mother to have control (i.e. abort the fetus) over her body. Addressing THAT question eliminates a great deal of the emotional rhetoric, and makes for a logical discussion of what path we as a society should take.

Do you believe in unlimited abortion; basically it's okay until the baby's head is crowning? Probably not - although I guess those people are out there. If not, then it's like the joke:
Man - "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
Woman - "For a million dollars? Why, yes!"
Man - "Would you sleep with me for a six pack?"
Woman - "What kind of woman do you think I am?"
Man - "We've already established that. Now we are just quibbling over price."

If you don't believe in unlimited abortion, and thus believe that at some point the fetus does indeed have a right not to be aborted, then why attack me for simply believing the same thing as you, but holding to an earlier point of development? A far better and more logical discussion would be at what point the fetus has rights, and why.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

You are reacting emotionally, not logically. My logic is not WAY off - your understanding is.( For handy reference - http://www.logicalfallacies.info/)

This is ironic, because . . .

Once more - the argument that "It is my body - society has no right to tell me what to do with it" is predicated on the belief that it is only a woman's body being discussed. It is not - there is another being in the discussion. If being "dependant"( sic) meant the baby had no rights at all, we would not have the federal law which does in fact give the unborn some limited rights.

. . . this is basically a series of logical fallacies - a definite appeal to authority, at least one false dilemma, and a probable ad hominem using (sic) where completely unnecessary.

The fundamental question which has to be grappled with is at what point does the right of a fetus to continue to grow and develop override the right of a mother to have control (i.e. abort the fetus) over her body. Addressing THAT question eliminates a great deal of the emotional rhetoric, and makes for a logical discussion of what path we as a society should take.

This is almost certainly not the fundamental question - this is because the "right of a fetus to grow and develop" is inordinately presumptive. Actually, the fundamental question is much closer to "what has rights?" or "at what point does a 'fetus' constitute a 'person' in a legal sense?"

If you don't believe in unlimited abortion, and thus believe that at some point the fetus does indeed have a right not to be aborted, then why attack me for simply believing the same thing as you, but holding to an earlier point of development? A far better and more logical discussion would be at what point the fetus has rights, and why.

Even setting hyperbole aside, this point is much more emotional than logical. You don't "believe" the same thing - the difference is very much based upon the point you choose, it's not like you can just slide the scale all willy-nilly and claim you're on the same boat as everyone else.

Right now, it's brackishly clear that a fetus has rights at the point of viability. The AMA has said somewhere in 23-24 weeks is the point of viability - thus, abortion is restricted at that point. You obviously feel this protection should begin earlier - can you give me one good legal reason that does not rely on any personal spiritual or religious views?