Fair is fair . . . Georgia Democrats propose an anti-vasectomy bill

[giblets]

I think to simply label people as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is being too heavy handed. I mean, which am I if I want to allow it with some minor restrictions (I'm not going to ramparts for 24 hr waiting periods) up until the 24th month (6 months) and then restrict it to only when the mother's life is at risk?

Given that around 99% of abortions happen in the first 24 weeks I think you're effectively pro-choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_abortion_by_gestational_age_2004_histogram.svg

[Jon Miller]

I consider myself pro-life.

JM

[regexcellent]

I've always used the terms anti-abortion and pro-abortion. The pro-life term is to avoid the bad sound of "anti" but anti-abortion is really more accurate. As for pro-choice, it's to avoid the really bad sound of the word "abortion." The reality is that if you go to the people who invented this word, the folks at planned parenthood and the really really far gone pro-abortion groups, they're not pro-"choice." They're actually pro-abortion. They believe that women who are young, especially teenagers, are not married, and have no economic security should get abortions because not doing so will destroy lots of opportunities they would otherwise have in life. I think a big part of the opposition to the Virginia bill actually comes from people who are afraid that teenagers will decide not to get abortions upon seeing an image of their child. Note that these groups have been opposed to transabdominal-only bills in other states. The whole violating their bodies thing with the transvaginal ultrasounds is a canard. The actual procedure to get an abortion is way more invasive.

[PLATO]

I thought this was a cool video:

Very cool video. Thanks for sharing that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Given that around 99% of abortions happen in the first 24 weeks I think you're effectively pro-choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US..._histogram.svg

Though not according to some strident proponents of abortion rights. Which is why I think the either/or dichotomy needs to be re-examined.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I don't see why the few cases where a woman's life is in danger means that all abortion should be legal.

Jon- what you can accept there is that, where there is such a conflict between the life of the mother and the life of the foetus, the rights of the mother prevail. You have no apparent problem with it, and that's fine by me.

Where it's a 10 year old child, I think we both agree that the situation is rather more complex.

Therefore please be aware that when you announce your bafflement over why people treat 10 year olds differently to the unborn, please remain aware that you do so yourself. You just have a differing opinion over where the line is drawn.

[MrFun]

I'm with Imran. I am pro-choice, but not in the absolute sense. I allow for abortion in cases of teenage pregnancy, rape, incest, or if expectant mother's life is at unusual risk.

I cannot blithely approve of an abortion for the sake of convenience if none of the above apply.

[Egbert]

I've always used the terms anti-abortion and pro-abortion.

I have no objections to being "labelled" as pro-abortion.

I think, let each prospective mother decide for herself. I do not see how I could have the right to decide for her.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I'm with Imran. I am pro-choice, but not in the absolute sense. I allow for abortion in cases of teenage pregnancy, rape, incest, or if expectant mother's life is at unusual risk.

I cannot blithely approve of an abortion for the sake of convenience if none of the above apply.

Let's test this.

Take the example of a woman who attempted to prevent pregancy with both conventional and emergency contraception. Both failed. It is now two weeks past conception. She wants a simple abortifacient to end this two-week pregnancy. Her reason for this is that she simply doesn't want to give birth.

How do you handle it?

[Egbert]

Let's test this.

Take the example of a woman who attempted to prevent pregancy with both conventional and emergency contraception. Both failed. It is now two weeks past conception. She wants a simple abortifacient to end this two-week pregnancy. Her reason for this is that she simply doesn't want to give birth.

How do you handle it?

I say, let her decide.
{Not for me to decide for her}

[kentonio]

I've always used the terms anti-abortion and pro-abortion.

Proving you are a ****ing idiot. No-one is pro abortion.

[Jon Miller]

Where it's a 10 year old child, I think we both agree that the situation is rather more complex.

Therefore please be aware that when you announce your bafflement over why people treat 10 year olds differently to the unborn, please remain aware that you do so yourself. You just have a differing opinion over where the line is drawn.

No, I think that the situation with the 10 yearold child is exactly the same.

If only the 10 yo or the mother can be saved, and only the mother can speak/etc, then I think the decision is made to save one primarily with input by the mother.

Nothing you have said provides any defense or excuse for the murder of a child just because they have not yet taken a breath of their own.

Quit trying to find an excuse, there is none.

And stopping the killing of innocents should be done whether it is a millin being killed or 10 or 1.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I think the majority of people in the US fall under the 'quite a few restrictions' group.

RoeVWade and abortion advocates setting up every vote as forcing raped women to bear a child even hen her life is at seious risk has allowed the killing of children to continue.

JM

[Aeson]

The situation with the 10 year old is definitely not the same as with the fetus.

With the fetus there is doubt about the point where the fetus becomes an individual deserving of rights. (I agree with Jon about the most likely timing of this given what we know, but don't agree it's a certain enough line to define what is or is not murder. Perhaps some day we will understand enough about the brain and what sentience is to make such a distinction. But we're definitely not there yet.)

With the 10 year old there is no question that the child is deserving of rights except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances (functionally brain dead on life support).

[Jon Miller]

The doubt is mostly invented by those who wish for abortion to continue. For there to be no restrictions on their right to abortion.

JM