Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

Are you pro-choice, pro-life or somewhere in between? Explain fully, please. Thanks.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:34 am

Comments

rare, safe, and legal

Where does that put me?

Comment by COPN Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:39 am
I’m a mom of two daughters who is proudly PRO-CHOICE! I don’t believe it’s the government’s right to decide such a personal issue related to the health of women. That’s between her, her family, her doctor and her moral traditions. The right of privacy trumps any other considerations in this case.
Yes, I do believe government may have a role in regulating late-term abortions — though, even there, the health and life of the mother has to take precedence.
Early-term abortions are not a government matter. Women have the right to control what happens with their own bodies.

Comment by Momof2 Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:41 am
Pro life. it seems to me the rational (if any )for abortion went out the window when it became “ok” to be a single mom.

Essentially now we have a system where a couple has sex. The man may be forced to be a parent finallcially for 18 years.

The woman can’t be asked to be a mother for 9 months, though.

It is hard to understand why a lifetime for one is less important than 9 months for another.

Comment by Pat collins Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:41 am
Pro life, but as a watcher of Maury Povich during my off days, I question that position. I am not one who cares enough about the issue to protest or boycott.

Comment by Wumpus Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:42 am
I also am for giving men more decision in the issue. A woman can make a decision on her own, but can also keep the baby and demand support payments if she has a goldmine in her womb.

Comment by Wumpus Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:43 am
I’m a dude…haven’t needed to, so I couldn’t care less.

Comment by Quotient Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:48 am
This should be interesting. I’m looking for a calm, rational, and talking-point free discussion of the most divisive social issue of our times.

Now to sit back, and wait for those great insights that may cause me to re-evaluate my own position on the issue.

Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:48 am
Fully Pro-Choice.

As a man, I find it hard to understand how we (men) feel the “right” to control how a woman controls her body. While I personally find the thought of an abortion abhorrent, I don’t pretend to understand the circumstance of the woman seeking the procedure.

I can also respect those that feel that it leaves the father “out” of the equation. But frankly, that is the way it should be. I think that it would be wonderful if men were involved in the decision process, I do not think it should be mandated.

No more than Pro-Life supporters would support the right of a man to FORCE a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

I think that we need to stop pretending that sex ed should be handled at home as well. I think that many of the unwanted pregnancies/teen pregnancy issues could be solved with comprehensive sex education. Contraception should be fully discussed, as well as consequences of becoming sexually active. If you want to preach abstinance, do it at home. We owe it to our children to be honest, and forthright about both the responsiblity and consequense of early sexual activity.

I think this would go a long way to helping prevent teen pregnancy, and abortions.

Comment by How Ironic Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:49 am
Exactly what Momof2 said. Although I do believe that abortion as a form of birth control is a sign of moral decadence and laziness.

Comment by Bill Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:50 am
Didn’t we have a bad enough experience here in Chicago with the last time America tried to legislate morality in a big way? (I am of course talking about Prohibition, and the rash of Al Capone jokes and snide remarks Chicagoans had to endure for the rest of the 20th century.)

Comment by fedup dem Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:50 am
I am pro-choice for the simple fact that I don’t like the idea that a government bureaucrat is in charge of a woman’s body. (We all know how well the government handles a crisis, so let’s put them in charge of this one.) So, I would agree with COPN; rare, safe, legal.

Comment by Heartless Libertarian Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:50 am
Pro-choice. My body, my choice. It’s as simple as that.

That said, there is a point where abortions should be limited with exceptions - which is fairly well-explained in Roe v. Wade.

If pregnant, I may choose not to have an abortion for a multitude of reasons, but I would never dream of projecting or preaching those reasons to someone else. This is one of those issues where everybody can be right for themselves, but what’s right for you isn’t right for the person standing next to you.

Comment by Bill S. Preston, Esq. Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:50 am
I’m pro-life. I believe it is murder to kill a child in whatever form it takes. It should be much easier to prevent pregnancies instead of terminating one. If I had children I would suggest using condoms or some form of contraception. I would especially encourage abstinence.

Comment by Levois Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:50 am
Gee Rich,

just a little non divisive question today, huh?

I’m for a concept known as “retroactive abortion”.

Elected official on the take………..abort him.

I haven’t worked out the logistics of it yet, but it’s almost time for my afternoon beer. I might have to define Wrigley Field as a “clinic”.

Comment by IrishPirate Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:52 am
Pro-choice. What’s to explain? It’s an issue of individual freedom and responsibility.

Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:54 am
I’m pro-life, because abortion ends a human life, but I think that the federal government shouldn’t be involved in that issue, because that would violate the 10th Amendment. Each state legislature should pass a bill which would state that each abortion is a homicide, except to save the mother’s life.

Comment by Phil Collins Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:54 am
I sadly had an abortion about 15 years ago and still today I have nightmares. I am Pro-Life and just the thought of an abortion eats me up inside. A life begins at conception.

Comment by Change Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:55 am
Gee, Rich, looking for a carefree, leisurely QOTD?!

Safe, legal and rare. It’s a nasty business, but its prohibition is even worse.

Shouldn’t pharmaceuticals have ended this debate by now? Or would that deprive the two major partys of their most sure-fire direct mail fundraising topic?

Having said that, it’s astounding to me that there are nearly 1.4 million abortions a year in this country.

I know there are arguments about sex ed, sex ed funding, condoms in schools, etc., but on a real basic, common sense level, everyone knows how to prevent pregnancy, right? Not to mention the possibility of disease?

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:55 am
I’ve always been 100% pro choice, until recently. Maybe it’s age, or reflection. I’m increasingly troubled by the issue, from all sides of the issue. I haven’t become a pro-lifer, but it’s just not easy for me to take an absolute position anymore. Call me “once certain, now conflicted.”

Comment by phocion Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:56 am
Definitely pro-life. It’s a human rights issue. If there is any doubt about whether a fetus is or is not human, we ought to err on the side of caution and assume that it is. With care, consideration and commitment, in most cases, both mother and child can be helped. I believe we need to promote what Pope John Paul II called a “culture of life” in many ways, not just with regard to the unborn.

That being said, however, I am NOT in agreement with many of the political tactics of the pro-life movement. Tying themselves so closely to the conservative wing of the GOP is not doing them any good, nor is demonizing everyone who opposes them as “baby killers”.

I really wish there were more pro-life people in BOTH parties, and I wouldn’t object if ALL parties dropped the issue from their platforms altogether and let candidates make their stands on an individual basis.

Comment by Secret Square Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 11:57 am
I absolutely hate abortion. I am a Democrat but am regularly appalled when I see my candidates make their stump speeches where they say how proudly they support the right to choose and then there is a huge applause. Yea, we get to kill babies.

Abortion may be a necessary evil because I don’t see how it could be outlawed, however, a moral society should do everything in it’s power to dissuade killing a helpless human being. That includes birth control, counseling, adoption and programs to help mothers care for the baby.

And Wumpus is correct about fathers rights. The right to choose only extends to the mother. If she wants to kill the baby-that’s her right-but if she wants to have it, papa better pay or he is a dead beat. Don’t our lawmakers realize how terrible it is for good men to have their child destroyed because it is inconvenient for the mother to give birth? Didn’t they both have a choice when they had sex?

The whole thing is pretty gut wrenching, but you asked.

Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:05 pm
Prolife.

For abortions, the real question is, “At what point does the fetus become a human being?” At that point, it is no longer just “a woman and her doctor” because there is a third human being involved, who has a rather large stake in the decision. No one has ever advanced a good, much less compelling, argument for picking any point after conception as the point at which a human being comes into existence, because all of the arguments would also support a determination that some people are not human because of age (too old or too young), mental capacity, etc. And, once you concede that there is no basis for saying a fetus is not human, you can’t justify killing it to avoid inconvenience any more than you can shoot your senile mother.

The health of the mother is a valid consideration, just as self-defense can justify killing, but we don’t let you kill someone to defend your mental health.

Regarding the death penalty, the only good argument in favor is the protection of innocent members of society, either by eliminating the bad guy or by deterring misbehavior. Other deterrents are available, and we are rich enough that we can afford to lock up bad guys rather than kill them, so I can’t see how taking the irrevocable step of executing someone who might be innocent and might be salvagable is justified. It’s not self-defense then.

War can be justified as a form of self-defense, but my oversimplified view is: If you, Mr. President (not naming any names now!) think war in Iraq is justifiable, then you must pick up a gun and lead the charge. No wars without the ones declaring it putting themselves at risk and, when innocent blood is inevitably shed, getting it on themselves.

Comment by Anon Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:13 pm
Phineas J. Whoopee nailed it on another major problem. Way too many candidates act as if unlimited abortion rights are something to be celebrated and defended at all costs.

I’d like to see someone approach abortion the way Lincoln approached slavery: as an evil that may have to be reluctantly tolerated to the extent that it already exists, but should not expand or be encouraged in any way.

Comment by Secret Square Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:17 pm
Reason for the delete?

Comment by countryboy Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:17 pm
On a personal level, I’m pro-life. However, the vast majority of both the pro-life and pro-choice crowds gall me with their rhetoric and hypocrisy.

The etymology of the phrases to describe positions and create the narratives is appalling. The right has appropriated “life” as if it were divine to them only. Meanwhile, the left has appropriated “choice” as if those holding opposite beliefs are backwards and dictatorial.

As I said, I am pro-life, and I truly mean that in all respects. That means I’m anti-death penalty as well, a position much of the pro-life community would reject. It also means I’m anti-preemptive war. Those last two positions would put me squarely in with liberals, but they’d rather not have me because I am anti-abortion.

Ultimately, I don’t believe that abortion should be an option except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

That being said, I view it as a moral issue rather than a governmental one, and I am completely uncomfortable with any government that seeks to engage the slippery slope of limiting rights.

Comment by Gadfly Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:18 pm
As someone that has a child, but has also had an abortion in college, I still am pro-choice. I am NOT proud of the fact that I chose abortion. But the fact remains that it was MY choice. That decision is between me, the doctor, the father, and God. Only He should judge me. I do not believe that it is governments role to regulate this. Women have to be able to make those decisions SAFELY. I do beleive that partial term abortion, except for the health of a woman, should be regulated.
Abortion is nothing to be proud of, but it is something that should be an option.
And to Pat Collins–it is Ok to be a single mom.

Comment by My Opinion Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:19 pm
I support taxpayer-funded abortions on demand for the first trimester or thereabouts, then strictly pro-life thereafter unless the mother’s life is at stake. Everyone deserves a “Mulligan” in case of rape, incest or night of drunken misadventure, but at some point in the fetal development, a real human being is formed that should have the same civil rights as the rest of us. I am also in favor of efforts that will reduce the need for a Mulligan. Willful abstinence will prevent most abortions from being necessary, but it takes a family and societal commitment to instill that value in our young women and men to get there. FWIW, I was not a poster child for abstinence in my youth, but I saw its value as I got older.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:20 pm
pro choice. It’s the women’s body

Comment by scoot Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:20 pm
I’m pro-choice, we should all be able to define our own morality, whether it be in matter of abortion, convenience store robberies, murders, graft, embezzling, or what have you.

The Constitution protects my right to privacy, and if I want to hold up the corner liquor store, abuse my children, or pressure my girlfriend to get an abortion, that’s no one’s business but my own.

All law legislates someone’s morality, and we all know you can’t legislate morality.

Comment by Paul, Just This Guy, You Know? Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:20 pm
Pro-Choice/in-between.

Although I think abortion should be a last result that happens rarely, I do not think it should be banned. That will result in unsafe abortions performed at-home or in secret. Also that will result in a higher birthrate. We’re already overcrowded, and the babies being born that would’ve been aborted will come more from young mothers and low-income mothers who wanted the abortion in the first place because they feel they are not fit to be mothers at this time.

Having a better sex ed system that talks about the various types of birth control and gives out free condoms would probably reduce teen pregnancy and abortions. I am strongly against abstinance-only sex ed.

I am against partial-birth abortions and late term abortions. They don’t make sense to me. If the baby could survive outside of the womb at that moment then it does seem to border the line of murder. If the baby is already part-way outside of the womb, then it is murder in my eyes.

Comment by Jessica Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:25 pm
Oh, & unlike most pro-choicers I do think doctors should not be forced to perform abortions against their wills. I don’t think entire hospitals or clinics, however, should be able to refuse to do abortions. If there is no doctor on staff willing to do an abortion, then I think they should have to hire someone.

Comment by Jessica Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:30 pm
It is proper for a society to set standards on how human life can be ended.

But first we need to be honest. We are not talking about chickens. Abortions are ending a human life. The idea that abortion is birth control is like advocating that a nuclear bomb is just another way to light up a cigarette. Restrictions should be applied, just as they are applied regarding the death penalty. In both cases we are discussing human life.

Claiming abortion is a private matter is like claiming that child abuse is a private matter. We have many laws that invade privacy for the sake of saving a human life. This should be one of them.

We have allowed lawyers to define what the “health” of a mother suggests, so that any mental stress resulting in pregnancy could be used justifiably by them to terminate a human life. We need to define this word, and every word within our laws so that humans are protected from parents and governments who see them as an incovenience, wrong gender, failing a medical test, bad father or inmature mother, or preventing Tina from fitting into her $1,000 prom dress. Those who support abortion for instances of mother’s health do not intend to have their fair-mindedness twisted into a death sentence.

Sorry, but birth is what we do. Yes, there are other joys of life, but we are not here because our parents were monks or nuns, focused on life eternal. Sex is good. Birth happens. Nature ensures through our biology and evolution that we are a part of something greater than the self and that bureaucracies are aberrations of human nature and undependable.

Those of us who prioritize convenience over biology struggle with life. Pregnancy, childbirth, child-rearing, special needs, aging and death are inconvenient, but not a reason to not allow nature to do what it is supposed to do.

What we see as inconvenience or special needs, a imperfect human, or defect may not be. We do not know why things happen, but the proof that they exist should force us to recognize that there is a purpose for these inconveniences. Life isn’t as accidental as we pretend it is, or there would be a whole lot fewer of us.

While we rail against traditionalism, we somehow use it as a crutch to terminate human life. Obama says he doesn’t want his girls to be burdened with an unwanted pregnancy and millions agree. Parents fear unmarried teen pregnancies and are willing to terminate human life in order to appease a society’s prejudices and bigotries. We’ve taken comments and judgements from the most narrow-minded people in our communities and use these ugly statements to justify a crime against a human being.

We know far more about human development within the womb than we did when Rowe v. Wade used “quickening” and ancient science to determine when life begins. There is simply no excuse anymore to know exactly what is occurring within a mother’s body and we know exactly when the human life within her feels, listens, understands, and lives.

It is at the point of conception.

Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:30 pm
Oh and one more thing PCollins: In MOST cases, a woman is a mother not only for nine months, but for a lifetime. A father is a father as long as he wants to be there. There are a lot of cases that women leave their children, but not near as many as men leaving. Why shouldn’t they pay for the 18 years?

Comment by My Opinion Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:35 pm
I am really both. Being pro-choice does not equal being anti-life, and being pro-life should not be equated with being anti-choice. They are connected but different issues. Child-bearing and child-rearing are culturally still viewed as inferior to the higher pursuits of wealth and status. Men still are given more rope to hang women with regarding familial initation and obligation. Social and cultural “policy” needs to recognize the intrinsic value of child-bearing and just as importantly, the same value on child-rearing. Those who raise children should be valued as much as, maybe more, than those those who raise corporations.

Comment by Captain Flume Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:38 pm
In the middle. I don’t believe in pressing my religous beliefs on people just as I don’t like it when people press theirs on me. I believe it abortion is the private decision of the woman involved and no one else. Having said that, I do not believe I would advise a family member to have one.
I do believe in Roe V Wade because without it there will be back ally abortions going one, at least with Row V Wade, those that choose to can get take care of things in a safer environment.

Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:48 pm
===Abortions are ending a human life.===
Not true. As usual you are mistaking your own ill formed opinions as facts

Comment by Bill Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:49 pm
Pro-choice - With some concern about later-term abortions. If IT starts at conception, then pro-lifers who believe this would need to be against The Pill, too, since it just causes the body to expel the conceived life/?blastocyst. If it’s a human being before being post-partum, then in fairness I should be able to insure the life/health and get it a S.S.#, too. I am a parent through adoption. This seems to me to be a medical ethics issue rather than a social/legal one.

Comment by Bob Dylan Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:52 pm
Here’s another thing I don’t understand about abortion. According to Jessica, if it’s partial birth or late term abortion it is murder. If the baby might survive it should be outlawed. What about the week before the baby might survive, then it is okay to kill the kid.

I bet that baby is hoping something comes up and mom misses her “procedure” appointment because the next week things are looking a whole lot better. I know they say timing is everything, but that seems extreme.

Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:53 pm
OK, Bill. When exactly does human life begin?

Comment by Anon Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:54 pm
Pro Choice and Pro life really don’t say much…

…the question is really at what point in gestation does a fetus’s moral value (and right to life) exceed a woman’s sovereignty over her body.

My problem with the pro choice crowd that I know is they almost always refuse to grapple with that question. They just deny the fetus any moral standing what so ever. They take Obama’s kick it to a higher authority line, or say it’s the woman’s decision, not theirs (so what would you say if the woman asked your advise? …but at that point I’ve been dismissed as neo-con and the converstion’s stopped.)

I’ve been moving that line back further and further to the point of conception and the only counter to it is the State can’t ask a Woman to bear a risk to give life to another.

I’m with Scalia here that judges aren’t any better equipped to decide these moral issues than any other citizens. Row v Wade should be overturned and the decision put onto legislatures.

Comment by Bill Baar Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 12:55 pm
In the case of innocent life, we should always err on the side of life.

In the vast, vast majority of cases, a man and a woman have made a conscious, deliberate decision to engage in an act that can result in a human life being formed. Our decisions and actions have results, and they are ours.

To say, “It’s a woman’s body, and she should be able to control what happens to it,” is to treat an unborn child as if it were a parasite–an evil thing that preys at the host. Is that what we as a society really think about unborn children?

We claim that human life is so valuable, so precious, and then we destroy the most innocent of life every single day. Our courts and others protect the lives of the vilest criminals who have proven they cannot live with society, yet they advocate against the lives of the most helpless.

If human life is special–as I believe it is–then we should protect it, especially when it cannot protect itself, especially at its most vulnerable.

Comment by Fan of the Game Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 1:07 pm
I think “Bill” believes life begins when the Primary season kicks into gear and when the Legislature is in session.

Comment by A Citizen Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 1:11 pm
I am pro-choice, and if my daughter gets pregnant, we are going to have a long talk about keeping the baby. And if my son gets a girl pregnant he’s out of my will. (That’s a joke. There is no way any but the most strident can know how he/she will handle these situations. I’ve seen it firsthand.)

BTW, the idea that life begins at conception is logically inconsistent for you “pro-lifers” since it would make almost all women baby killers. Fertilized eggs are regularly lost during menstruation, thus “killing babies.”

“Oh, but God did that, not a doctor,” some of them will say. And thus we get to the heart of the matter. That God guy is whispering directives in the “faithful’s” ears that includes setting public policy.

But we can stop these abortions! How? Contraception! But God is telling many of these same people that you’re interfering with God’s ability to make (and destroy) life if you use those! So God is allowing the conditions to be created to have MORE unwanted pregnancies.

I’ve said it before, and others have said it better than me. God either has a sick sense of humor or is trying her best to mess with our heads down here.

And “let nature do what it is supposed to do”? Cancer and diabetes are natural, too. Let’s let them take their course.

Comment by Lefty Lefty Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 1:18 pm
i guess i’m in between, veering pro-choice.

i think life begins at the time of conception (indistinct cells join in an individualized entity with its own potential: unlike Catholic teaching, it seems that birth control is fine), so abortion is killing, but not all killing is a crime.

the standard “it’s my body” argument seems intellectually deficient. just because we have to procreate as God intended, doesn’t mean there isn’t a third person involved. yet the prospect of outlawing abortion, forcing women into unregulated settings, is worse than troubling.

recognizing the humanity of a fetus, but allowing abortion, would have one useful application in criminal law: given that one is deemed to intend the possible consequences of one’s bad acts, rapists could also be prosecuted for manslaughter, if not murder.

Comment by corvax Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 1:19 pm
I remember years ago sitting in a pew listening to a priest read out a letter from the local bishop about abortion, saying in essence “to all those young, frightened teenagers out there, be assured we know what you’re going through, so you should listen to us.” All I could think of was “WTF??” You (presumably, supposedly) lifelong celibate man, now in his 60s or 70s, in a position of power and authority, who has lived in a quasi-socialist organization for decades and thus never had to fear for where your next meal was coming from or whether you’d be homeless if your parents found out, you understand what it’s like to be a scared, undereducated, resource-less minority female with a family that may or not react angrily or violently to the news of a pregnancy? Seriously? Pull the other one. But that doesn’t mean the Church is wrong about the basic morality of the issue. But we don’t (shouldn’t, must not) let the Church write the laws.

As morally troubling as I find abortion to be, I agree with others here that the degree of government intrusion and control needed to enforce a ban would be impossible to sustain in a free society, especially with the availability of the morning after pill.

Government ought to spend its efforts ensuring that it’s as rare as possible. That includes not just access to birth control and encouraging/subsidizing adoption 9espcially of special-needs kids), but aggressive efforts along the lines of laws protecting the jobs of women who take maternity leave, ensuring that high school and college age mothers can remain in or return to schools without losing admissions places, scholarships, or other benefits, subsidizing not just pre-natal care and delivery costs, but providing income support to mothers through the first birthday.

Finally, there ought to be a coordinated national campaign to remove the stigma from “accidental” or “unplanned” pregnancies. There’s a huge social component to people’s reactions to some pregnancies, and we need to cultivate an atmosphere where women of any age or circumstance who choose to carry through with their pregnancies are justly regarded as heroes.

Comment by Muskrat Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 1:21 pm
I am 100% pro-choice having had many, many female friends exercise their right to choose. With that said, I am a strong proponent of comprehensive sex education so that we can minimize the need for abortions.

Some studies say that 40% of women over 18 have terminated a pregnancy in their lives. Trust me, you probably know a woman who has exercised her right to choose.

Oh, as a former Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter, I am exercising my right to vote for McCain/Palin. I do not believe McCain/Palin will/can dismantle the right to reproductive freedom as regulatory policies will ultimately be decided on a state-by-state basis.

Comment by Black Ivy Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 1:25 pm
Pro-choice. I cite the 13th amendment, which prohibits slavery. If a woman is required to involuntarily carry a child for any length of time, that seems like slavery to me. Now, I do think that if the foetus is beyond the time of viability (which is, what 5.5 months right now), then a C-section should be attempted, if possible without negatively affecting her health; because at that point in time, there are not conflicting rights–that is the woman can be free of the unwanted pregnancy without resulting in the death of the foetus. Prior to the point of viability, there are conflicting rights because such is not the case, but her rights take precedence due to the 13th amendment.

Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 1:33 pm
Trust me, you probably know a woman who has exercised her right to choose.

I know many. And each and everyone of them would NOT do it if they had a time machine and could undo it.

Comment by Pat collins Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 1:40 pm
Pro choice, but would choose life. I beleive that this issue should be closely tied to domestic adoption issue. The laws should be changed to make it easier for adoptive parents in domestic adoptions, so they don’t have to go bankrupt with foreign adoptions. The government should work with agencies such as Planned Parenthood to increase adoptions with an increase in funds they are given for each adoption. The man/father should have no say in the matter. They usaully raise a fuss to twink the woman involved.

Comment by Cookie Monster Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 1:41 pm
Cermak- Did you really equate carrying a child with slavery?!? Willful (in over 99.9% of pregnancies) engagement in intercourse, knowing that pregnancy is a possible result, that results in the conception of a child is akin to slavery?!?

Please. Research real slavery. Then argue again that pregnancy is slavery with real comparisons, not a slogan that you use to justify your own actions.

Comment by South Side Mike Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 1:44 pm
“Oh, but God did that, not a doctor,” some of them will say.

We secular humanists would say nature not God and as a auditor for the Medicaid program in Wisc I was had the strange task of sorting out the natural abortions (eligible for Fed Fin Participation) and those not natural (excluded from FFP). This was many years ago and I have no idea what the rules are now.

Law needs a definition of when life begins and when it doesn’t and there is really no way around it. Technology will just force decisions on more complicated issues(witness the wrongful death suit brought by a couple in Cook County over the accidental destruction of their embryos by a fertility clinic)… that’s why this question isn’t going to go away… as someone wrote above, if we make mistakes here, I’d want to err on the side of life.

Comment by Bill Baar Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 1:48 pm
I’m curious if all you pro-lifers out there who think abortion is murder are also opposed to the death penalty?

Comment by chicago student Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 1:58 pm
Lefty, by your logic we should not have any laws to curb drunk driving or speeding because many motorists get killed or injured anyway by “natural” phenomena (icy or wet roads, deer collisions) and accidental occurrences (blown tires, failed brakes, etc.)

Comment by Secret Square Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:00 pm
The only thing certain is that the central question surrounding this issue will never be solved.

When does life begin?

Any rationale person will agree that it is wrong to terminate someone’s life (lets leave the death penalty question aside for the moment). Therefore, the difference in opinion is the definition of life and its genesis.

Science can give us insight. Science can tells us when the brain begins sending and recieving electronic signals. Or when the heart and circulatory system begin to pump blood. However, even if we know these answers there is still much room to dispute them and whether the existence of such evidences define life.

Science is limited.

Religion is equally flawed. Religious principles surrounding abortion were decided by many of the church’s administrative hierarchy. Therefore, they were conceived by man and are with their natural biases. Most religious docterines say that it is a sin to kill. However, this still does not solve the central question.

Religion is limited.

If science and religion cannot solve this question then maybe our constitution can. We are guaranteed the right to privacy and the right to life and liberty under the law. It seems to me that while this debate will never be solved it may be boiled down to the right to privacy versus the right to life. And each person may use whatever logic, religious beliefs, or emotions to decide which they feel is more important to them and their happiness.

With all that being said i still have no idea where i stand on the issue and i tend to believe one does not know truly where one stands until one is placed in a situation where this choice must be made.

Comment by still dont know Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:01 pm
And by the way, I do think the death penalty is unnecessary and might as well be abolished.

Comment by Secret Square Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:03 pm
Topic’s been up almost 4 hours and not one use of the word “nazi”. We must be doing something right.

Comment by How Ironic Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:04 pm
I prefer the terms “anti-abortion” and “pro-abortion rights” b/c they are more specific.

If religious institutions want to make abortions illegal for their members, I’m OK with the state helping religious institutions enforce this.

But members of religious institutions should have the right to quit, which would include notifying their institution.

So, if you want to belong to a sect that makes it illegal for you to have an abortion that’s your right. But you don’t have a right to impose your theology or personal philosophy on others.

Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:19 pm
===I’m curious if all you pro-lifers out there who think abortion is murder are also opposed to the death penalty?===

Not opposed at all. The death penalty should be used judiciously and rarely, but it should be available and utilized.

What’s the difference?

A convicted murderer whose crime is so heinous it deserves the death penalty has made conscious decisions to deprive another of life. He has been given a chance at life within our society and has wasted it. He has forfeited his right. An unborn child is innocent. Its only “crime” is existing and being unwanted.

There is no comparison.

Comment by Fan of the Game Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:23 pm
If religious institutions want to make abortions illegal for their members, I’m OK with the state helping religious institutions enforce this.

Sharia in Illinois! Thank you, NO.

I’m curious if all you pro-lifers out there who think abortion is murder are also opposed to the death penalty?

I guess when 12 other babies approve the abortion, after finding the unborn guilty of something really bad, then it’s ok.

Comment by Pat collins Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:25 pm
I have a question for the pro lifers out there:

What should the criminal sanction be for a woman who has an abortion? How about for the doctor? Is it appropriate to punish the doctor instead of the woman when that will bring back coathanger procedures? Afterall, this is something a woman can do to herself, it isn’t exactly a kidney transplant.

Comment by Joshua Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:26 pm
I was one of the first posts and just checked back. I’m the pro-choice mother of two. I should add that I have personal experience with this issue. When I was a junior in college, I terminated a pregnancy in the sixth week. It was probably one of the saddest experiences of my life. But even so, I would have made the same choice today — and I am so, so glad that women have that choice to make. I was a stupid kid when it happened — and the guy was abusive. It was so stupid to (a) be involved with him and (b) get pregnant by him. I can honestly say I think my life would have been devastated had I been forced to carry a child to term. For one, I probably would never have finished college. I was depressed already, and that certainly would have worsened. It would have meant compounding one stupid 15-minute mistake with another huge, huge lifetime mistake.
I know there will be people who would say this is selfish. It is selfish. But it’s also self-preservation. I made that choice.
So, I don’t take this issue lightly at all. I would never advocate abortion as birth control. Believe me, having an abortion is no fun. Now that I’m older, married and have two children, I have thought a lot about those days. I do feel sad about it, but I don’t regret it. I feel that we can learn from bad things — and one of the things I have learned is to make sure my own daughters never find themselves in such a situation. We have many open conversations and I want them to always come to me with questions about sex. Also, I want them to know that sex is an important thing between mature people, not something to be taken lightly.
Thanks for letting me add to my post.

Comment by Momof2 Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:27 pm
I believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided by the SCOTUSA and that the issue should be left up to the states.
Personally I am pro-life but abortion keeps the population rate down.
So I guess I am in the middle.

Comment by Ravenswood Right Winger Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:32 pm
Fan of the Game- I agree that society should do its best to protect life- that includes making sure children have a good education, can walk the streets of their neighborhood without worrying about getting shot, have enough food, and have a roof over their heads. What bothers me is the elected officials who are anti-abortion, but also vote to strip funding for programs that make it easier on women to raise children, and on programs that make children’s lives better and more fulfilling.

The convicted murderer you speak of has also more often than not been wronged by our society. Not always. But too often, people who have committed heinous crimes have also been victims themselves. As contributing members of society, we need to acknowledge our roles in perpetuating the cycle of violence, and focus on proven methods of preventing crime, and rehabilitating those that have commit heinous acts.

Comment by chicago student Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:34 pm
What should the criminal sanction be for a woman who has an abortion? How about for the doctor?

ooohhhh. The subject of the FAKE Libertyville clinic youtube video. Why do I say fake? Because street signs in Libertyville don’t look like that. Why no one called them on that, I can’t imagine.

Well you may choose:

1) Same as in IL in 1960.

2) Same as for violating a hate crime law

3)Civil fine and deprival of license.

Any you do know that girls self abort and deliver and leave babies in trash cans today, don’t you? Since we are in a Roe v Wade wonderland, with Personal Pac flying high cover for us, how can such things be?

Comment by Pat collins Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:36 pm
Pro-choice. As others have said, rare, safe, and legal. I think we need to shift our focus to preventing unwanted pregnancies, and I would imagine that many of us on either side can agree on that. I’ve often wondered why some of the staunchest anti-choice proponents were also anti-contraception.

When you make concrete assertions that the destruction of a fetus is murder, it would completely eliminate in vetro fertilization, which is a path that many are forced to take to become parents.

Ultimately, Roe recognizes a right to privacy in the Constitution, and I agree with that.

A curious query: If abortion is illegal, will all women flying out of the country have to submit to a pregnancy test before departure and upon their return?

Comment by doubtful Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:37 pm
====A curious query: If abortion is illegal, will all women flying out of the country have to submit to a pregnancy test before departure and upon their return? ====

Another straw man from doubtful. Does someone flying to Amsterdam have to take a drug test before and after the trip? Didn’t think so.

Comment by South Side Mike Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:45 pm
chicago student–I understand that some people have hard lives, and they often have a hard time gettng the necessities they need. But if I cannot provide for myself, why would I risk getting pregnant and now having two people for whom I cannot provide?

As for murderers, they made a choice. We all make choices. Some of us have easier choices than others, but we own what we do. As a contributing member of society, I have never perpetuated the cycle of violence.

Comment by Fan of the Game Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:46 pm
Pat collins, you’re OK with government (at the behest of religious institutions) forcing women to carry pregnancies to term, but….

You’re not OK with government helping religious institutions prevent their members from getting abortions?

Why are you so keen on forcing others to adopt your philosophical view?

And the whining about 18 years of child support seems kinda pathetic. Fathers who really don’t want to pay child support can avoid it. You might not be able to have a cushy government job and avoid paying child support, but if you really want to avoid paying child support, you can.

Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:46 pm
Also, I would have to agree with Obama, and others that have mentioned this: we need to find common ground on this abortion issue. Everyone can agree that we need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and reduce teenage pregnancy. This is a divisive issue and is fodder for the culture wars. Even if Roe v. Wade was overturned and it was left up to the states, practically it wouldn’t matter. A woman already cannot get an abortion in 87% of counties in this country.

Comment by chicago student Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:48 pm
I think Nebraska’s law allowing for dropping off kids no questions asked is a good way to deal with what could become an abusive or worse situation. A couple of weeks ago a guy dropped off eleven of his kids - one teenager found his way home though. I called and asked if they would allow us to drop off guv, no questions asked, and they said okay.

Comment by A Citizen Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:50 pm
I want to add that the whole notion of abortion provides me with conflict. I would hate for my daughters to get pregnant before they were ready–graduated from college, in good jobs, married. I would hate to see them have to struggle because they made a poor choice. They are my children, and I want the best for them–always.

So I can see how some approach abortion as the lesser of two evils. One mistake and your life is forever altered. But for the unborn–who never made a mistake, who never had the chance–abortion means life is gone forever.

Comment by Fan of the Game Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:54 pm
Momof2 - Your story could be my own. I termintated an early pregnancy just out of college and now I have 2 girls. I regret that I was ever in the situation but I don’t regret my decision. I am eternally grateful that I had the options I had. My life would likely be very very different had I carried that pregnancy to term. Selfish? Yes. But self-preservation is right.

Comment by been there Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:54 pm
Another straw man from doubtful. Does someone flying to Amsterdam have to take a drug test before and after the trip? Didn’t think so. -South Side Mike

I don’t mean to make a straw man argument, I’m legitimately curious and I think if the law prohibits abortion, these questions will have to be answered.

Regarding your flawed analogy, it is not illegal for a US Citizen to use a substance banned in the US when they are in another country where the substance is legal, such as absinthe in some European countries, or even alcohol for 18 year olds in most of Europe.

It is, however, illegal to murder a US citizen no matter what country you’re in. It is illegal to smuggle a person out of the country, especially for the express purpose of murdering them.

It’s false equivalence and intellectually lazy to say smoking some weed in Amsterdam is the same as murder. My argument, according to you, may be straw man, but it’s not absurd like your counter.

Comment by doubtful Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:55 pm
Fan of the game- I’m glad you have never personally perpetuated the cycle of violence, but there are things we tolerate that perpetuate the cycle of violence: such as de-funding programs that help victims and offenders.

My guess is that you are probably a very privileged person. Probably everyone who is commenting on this blog are very privileged. I may know nothing about you, but you have access to the internet right now (and every day cause you are a frequent commenter). You probably even own a computer, which puts you ahead of 90% of the world’s population. When talk about abortion you speak as though people make informed decisions about sex, and therefore, they should know how to prevent pregnancy. Unfortunately that is not the case. Most people are not privileged. They may not have had a good education that teaches them how to avoid getting pregnant, they may not have access to contraception, they may not know where to buy a condom, or they may not have money for any of this.

Comment by chicago student Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 2:56 pm
chicago student,

3 types of lies: Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

What percentage of people live in that 13% that have an abortion provider (hint, it’s a lot higher than 13%)? Bonus question: what percentage of minorities live in a county with an abortion clinic?

Comment by South Side Mike Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:00 pm
SSM- what is your bonus question implying?

Comment by chicago student Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:01 pm
Also, my point about 87% of counties not having an abortion provider is simply that it would not practically make a difference if the issue went back to the states.

Comment by chicago student Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:05 pm
Chicago Student, abortion is legal. I suspect there are abortion clinics where there is enough demand you can make a buck off of it. I don’t really get your point.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:09 pm
chicago student,

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, believed in eugenics and attended KKK rallies. Abortion (and forced sterilization) was one of her favored methods to help control undesired populations. Most PPs are located in the midst of the very populations she sought to eliminate. Coincidence? Alveda King, nephew of MLK, doesn’t think so.

Comment by South Side Mike Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:13 pm
chicago student–I have a very good life. Very good, and I appreciate it.

This wasn’t always the case, though. When I was young, my father’s small business was destroyed by his partner’s embezzling. He went to work as a laborer but lost that job due to back surgery. We lived on support from other family members for several years. I was the victim of sexual abuse. We were poor.

My parents were good parents and they worked their way out of poverty, and they instilled in their children an appreciation for education. I thank them for that.

I Knew for a young age how babies were made, and I knoew how to prevent it–I didn’t have sex. At least not until I learned how it might be prevented in other ways. I waited until I was 30 to father my first child because by then I was able to care for her, my wife, and myself.

So, yes, I am privileged more than some, not as much as others.

Comment by Fan of the Game Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:16 pm
Chicago studeent.

It is good that you are a student. You have a lot to learn. Statements that assume everyone here is “privileged” and most people who live here are not, immediately set off the BS detector. Most of us posting here are probably of average or better means, but for example you do not know that I grew up on welfare in two states as a kid. And you throw out stuff like “most people are not privileged” without defining what privilege is or providing statistical backup. We are sticklers for facts and stats here.

Don’t mean to bust your bubble or even criticize your position here (and I’m glad this discussion hasn’t turned into a flame war). Just some thoughts to help you communicate with this audience.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:20 pm
SSM, Most clinics are located in big cities, which have a more diverse population. It is harder to get clinics in smaller towns or suburbs.

As for Margaret Sanger, she is long gone. Modern PP advocates fight for contraception, comprehensive sex education, and safe & legal abortions, of all people, black and white.

Comment by chicago student Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:23 pm
I like what secret square said. I am pro-life and a registered Democrat. I’d like to see more pro-life people in the Democratic party, and a greater acceptance of pro-life people by the pro-choice majority in our party. I have many friends and relatives who are pro-choice and I respect the right of people to have different views on this subject. However, in the Democratic party, it seems like there is a “litmus test” on this issue - if you aren’t down-the-line pro-choice, somehow, it seems, you don’t have a place in the party. It’s unfortunate that the debate over this issue has imbued or has become imbued with partisan differences.

I am pro-life because I believe it is the role of government, of society, to use the power of law to protect those most vulnerable. Because I believe that human life and personhood begin at conception, I think that terminating pregnancy is the unjustified taking of human life, murder, if you will.

Just my $.02

Comment by The Election Code Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:25 pm
doubtful,

I still don’t think your argument is valid. Citizenship is not defined by conception. Citizenship is determined by birth. A pregnant American woman who delivers a child in France has a child who is a French citizen. The United States government extends a citizenship offer for the child as long as the mother meets certain conditions.

Overturning Roe would not lead to a ban on abortion. Instead, it would return the decision to the states. Only a Constitutional Amendment or a Supreme Court decision declaring citizenship status to exist at the moment of conception could lead to the potential scenario you’re proffering.

Comment by South Side Mike Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:27 pm
South Side Mike,

Yes, I do compare forced pregnancy to slavery. The fact is you can sign a document stating that you agree to be someone’s slave. You made a free choice. Maybe you agreed because they offered you a pizza and you were hungry. You made your choice. However, the 13th amendment would still apply, and the contract would be void.

The 13th amendment didn’t just outlaw slavery where the slave is mistreated. Or slavery where the person agrees to be enslaved (like in the case of the coyotes (human traffickers)) even for a period of time. It outlaws it universally and in all its forms.

Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:27 pm
One thing everyone, pro-life or pro-choice, seems to agree on so far is that abortion is NOT a good thing that we want to see more of. At best, it is conceded to be the lesser of two or more evils. Even some of the most ardent pro-choice people who have posted so far concede that the right to abortion should have SOME limits.
Yet, for all practical purposes, the U.S. Supreme Court, in various rulings including Roe, insists that it does not, and a significant number of politicians — of both parties — go out of their way to defend this situation. Why is that the case, when, as far as I can tell, very few people who call themselves pro-choice really agree with them?

Comment by Secret Square Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:28 pm
Let’s be real here. Margret Sanger? Ask most women going to get an abortion who she is. I doubt many will tell you. Ask her if she is glad she has a choice, more than likely she will tell you yes. I posted earlier that I had an abortion. While not proud, I am thankful that I could make a choice for myself without having to do something unsafe and even more harmful to myself. I am not saying everyone should have one, but every woman should have the choice. I cannot stand how some folks have to shove their opinions and self-righteous rhetoric toward others. Margaret Sanger? Really?

Comment by My Opinion Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:29 pm
===Most clinics are located in big cities, which have a more diverse population. ===

Which is exactly why the 87% argument is a nice fundraising statistic for NARAL and Planned Parenthood, but is really irrelevant to the discussion.

Comment by South Side Mike Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:30 pm
Sorry for using generalizations everyone- trying to avoid this discussion because I should be working right now. But I love it so I can’t help it.

I’ll end with one thought regarding the privilege issue. I wasn’t trying to say that just because most of us are more privileged than most doesn’t mean none of us had hard lives. I’m sorry if it came off that way.

I just try not to judge people’s decisions- and that is one reason why I think abortion should be legal. I don’t know what other people have been through, and I don’t know how or why a particular woman got pregnant, or why she didn’t prevent it. Because of that, I don’t think someone else should tell her she has to carry the fetus inside her for 9 months and then either raise the child, or give it up for adoption (also an incredibly hard decision).

Comment by chicago student Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:30 pm
Back to the question, please. If you’ve already answered, move along. Thanks.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:31 pm
Pro choice. A few times in my life, I’ve been in the confidence and company of women from the pre Roe v. Wade generation. To hear what these women went through is heart wrenching.

No one wants to see abortion used as birth control. Realistically, I cannot imagine anyone doing that or at least doing that more than once — the procedure and recovery, even in a medical setting, is no picnic.

There is a history all around us, even if it is only whispered on rare occasions and in small circles, that foretells what will happen to our daughters, mothers and aunts if abortion is outlawed once more. We don’t want to go there again. Instead, we need to focus on making it more and more rare.

Comment by Zora Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:38 pm
I’m not truly sure that I know what those terms actually mean. Seriously.

Comment by Squideshi Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:55 pm
Personally, I’m pro-life. I’ve been faced with this and had to chose what was right for me but I don’t feel I have the right to tell other women what they can and cannot do with their bodies so I support pro-choice.

What really gets me with some pro-lifers is their lack of willingness to educate kids about safe sex. Let’s just all bury our heads in the sand and pretend it’s not happening.

My other gipe against pro-lifers is they use the term pro abortion. NO ONE is pro abortion!

Comment by chic ster Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 3:55 pm
Just want to clarify that I was being a bit sarcastic about what’s “natural” after quoting VM. Logically (there’s that word again) we should use all the tools at our disposal in an ethical manner to minimize suffering and maximize health and safety of the populace. That is a major role of government, and it applies here.

That’s why there should be choice when it comes to pregnancy. The state cannot decide what is safe, healthy, and necessary for a pregnant woman (or the fetus, for that matter).

Comment by Lefty Lefty Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 4:02 pm
I am PRO-LIFE. As a teen I was forced (absolutely strongarmed) into abortion by my Mother and the CHILD’s father. I had no choice. Even though I had no say so, I lived with severe shame. The parent who forced me reminded me all of the time of what I had done (got yourself knocked up). I lived with horrible nightmares for many years (occasionally I still have them). For a long time there was no sleep for me. I turned to things to forget what I had done. Inside, I knew what I had done was wrong, and for me it was made worse knowing I didn’t fight for the child to live. I did finally fight to have another child, now grown. I was young. Things were not easy. I DO NOT REGRET having that child, or the way it detoured my personal life and plans. I wouldn’t trade being Mom for all the money in the world. It altered my life for the better, caused me to grow up and focus on meeting a little persons every need. It knocked the selfish and dangerous right out of me - maybe saved my life.

I still think around the same time every year (September) about the birthday that never was allowed. I think how old they would have been (28 last month) I wonder about eye and hair color, male or female? People say it gets easier. I disagree. My living child started out the same exact way as the child who didn’t get the chance. How can we say they are not human children from conception? I say they are. I guess we have to tell ourselves whatever we must to justify the things we do. This is not an easy issue. It is extremely painful. As far as the argument of “My body - my choice” a choice was made when we lie down with someone. What about the child growing inside? He/she has no choice, and no voice. I think pro-lifers simply want to give voice to those who cannot speak for themselves. Both sides make the other angry. I don’t think there will ever be concensus on this issue. Now my Mother sees they type of Mom and Grandma I am, and is sorry for forcing me to end the pregnancy. I’m glad she has had a change of heart.

Comment by Say WHAT? Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 4:13 pm
Well Rich you should be glad I’ve always been against abortion. That’s why there are five Miller boys! Dad

Comment by Obamalac Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 4:23 pm
Personally, I’m pro-life. I believe life begins at conception. However, I believe every other female has the right to make that choice for herself.

I am disappointed that adoption isn’t more often considered instead of abortion. For those women who decide to abort when they were younger, I wish they could have decided to give the children up for adoption. That being said, had I been in the same circumstances, I’m not sure I could have given up a child.

Comment by IMBack Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 4:25 pm
Pro Choice. I believe abortion and all aspects of women’s healthcare is between a woman and her doctor. No one can make that kind of decision for me until they have walked in my shoes.

Though I do think that teens under 18 should have to have parental permission.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 4:27 pm
==BTW, the idea that life begins at conception is logically inconsistent for you “pro-lifers” since it would make almost all women baby killers. Fertilized eggs are regularly lost during menstruation, thus “killing babies.”

“Oh, but God did that, not a doctor,” some of them will say. And thus we get to the heart of the matter. That God guy is whispering directives in the “faithful’s” ears that includes setting public policy.==

I thought these talking points were discredited sometime around the time Yoko Ono back in 1981 made similar comments and got laughed out of town with them.

You put words into people’s mouths, then discredit them. Thats what is called setting up a straw man.

The passing of fertilized eggs is natural, just as pregnancy is natural. I don’t know anyone claiming that it is God’s will when this happens, and it sounds like you really don’t either, but you want to prove your intelligence even if it means pretending, right?

Just as we don’t consider it murder when a loved one passes while living in our homes, we don’t consider it murder when a fertilized egg passes either. The supposed point you are trying to make really doesn’t work, does it?

Sorry, but your entire posting is off and kinda dopey when taken in it’s entirety - kinda like most of mine though!

Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 4:28 pm
I look at the science. The science of life is that the unique human being begins with conception. It has the potential then to grow and develope to a point where it can live ex-utero with the care of other human beings. At some point, many years later, the human life has sufficient capacity to survive without the direct assistance and care of another human being. As a social creature in the society of human beings, given the degree of specialization in the society of humans in America, very few can live and have all basic needs met without the assistance of and cooperation with other human beings with different skill sets and specialties. The science is clear. The political question or legal question is, at what stage in a person’s life are they so dependent upon another or so potentially inconvienent to another that another may illiminate that life. I believe in self-defense defined as the necessity to take another’s life when that life represents a specific risk of death or serious bodily harm to you or another (under circumstances justifying you to act on behalf of the other: household member, family member or in proximity to the commission of a crime). Inconvenience or lack of affection or desire is not a justification. Most abortions stop a beating heart as most women do not know they are pregnant until after the life has sufficiently developed to have his or her own beating heart(about four weeks). We do not allow mercy killing of people with a beating heart, unless there is no brain wave activity and no reasonable prospect of the person not recovering sufficiently to have brain function. A baby in utero has tremendous potential to gain full body, brain and social functions. Therefore, he or she may not be killed, even if the mother believes it would be merciful to herself to have the life terminated. Other than Barack Obama, Americans and American law does not support infanticide and we do not allow parents to shirk their parental duties because such duties are inconvenient, expensive or otherwise imposes a significant burden upon them or upon their lifestyle.

Comment by Fortunato Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 4:49 pm
From a woman’s point of view: I have had a miscarriage, an actopic pregnancy and not very proud to say an abortion. Each and everyone of those babies that I lost were special. I proudly say that I am Pro-Life, even thought 3 babies died in my womb, Every time I hear some one say “How can you be pro-life, you had 3 babies die in you womb.” I wish those of you who say that would walk in my shoes on a day when one of my babies lost there life. It is one sad and depressing day for me and I do this three days a year. I would never wish that upon anybody. What about the woman who can’t have babies should they be Pro_choice even though they may be Pro-Life. How dare anyone to say that.

Comment by Change Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 4:57 pm
VM, you are guilty of a common error in reasoning and logic. It is true that not all fertilized eggs properly plant within the womb and are therefore flushed out of the body before sufficient developement can occur. However, such an event is not murder or killing. There is not an act of commission on the part of the mother. Abortion is a purposeful and willful act to destroy the baby. A “baby killer” is one who forms the intent, the mens rea, to commit the act of killing and then takes sufficient steps to accomplish the goal of taking a baby’s life. The abortionist is a baby killer if he or she believes that the baby in utero is living at the time of the abortion. There are some instances where a D and C is performed to remove a baby that has died in utero to avoid the necrotic tissue of the dead baby from causing serious infection or harm to the mother.

Comment by Fortunato Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 5:00 pm
Fortunato,

I believe that is, or is close to, VanillaMan’s position as well. I think you’re mistaking the first part of the comment (bookended by ==) as original thought, but that is actually a snippet from an earlier comment that VanillaMan is responding to.

Comment by doubtful Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 5:06 pm
Pro-Choice. The decision in Roe v. Wade, which was based on Griswold v. Connecticut (which legalized birth control and recognized a right to privacy in the constitution) was correctly decided by the Supremes.

The decision to carry to term or abort is best left to those most intimately involved in the situation–the woman and whomever else she choses to consult.

Having said that, I do believe that abortion should be safe, legal and rare and the best way to prevent abortion is to make it easier for women to chose to carry their pregnacies to term by making health care more readily available and child care more affordable.

Comment by Mountain Man Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 5:13 pm
Rich, I would like to see a response from you to - Obamalac - Something insightful and illuminating?

Comment by A Citizen Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 5:31 pm
It’s my father. What the heck do you want me to say?

Look at his car and you’ll know I have no control or influence over the man. lol

Back to the question, please.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 5:32 pm
Thanks for not saying “Bite Me” even though I probably deserved it.
I have always been Pro Life however I do not believe my beliefs should be forced on anyone else. The issue of excersizing choice is none of my business and is between the woman, doctor, and the guilty male impregnator, and perhaps a religious person, if applicable. I also believe the government should be silent on the issue, neither allowing nor disallowing. It is a medical procedure like many others and carries the potential for life long repercussions both positive and/or negative/depressing.

Comment by A Citizen Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 5:42 pm
I am pro-life, 100 percent. Abortion is harmful to women as well as their unborn children. No woman ever WANTS to have an abortion. Whenever a woman feels, or is made to feel, that she has no other choice, or that her life will be “ruined” if she does not abort, someone — her parents, her husband/boyfriend, her other friends, neighbors, society in general — has failed her. She and her child deserve better.

The problem in the years since “Roe” is that what was meant to be a last resort in extreme cases — a “nuclear option” for unwanted or dangerous pregnancies — has become commonplace, to the tune of 1 million-plus abortions annually.

Pro-lifers foresaw that this would happen, and have tragically been proven right. Today, pro-lifers fear (with good reason, I believe) that the same thing will happen if euthanasia or assisted suicide become legal — it will become more and more accepted to the point where it will be very easy to pressure or coerce people into doing it (as “Say What’s” mother pressured her into having an abortion).

I also believe the views of people who oppose “comprehensive” sex education or birth control for teens have been somewhat distorted. As I see it, it’s not the information itself that is the problem so much as the underlying assumption (absorbed from popular culture) that abstinence/virginity or chastity is impossible, that no one past the age of puberty can possibly live without sex, and that anyone who strives to do so must be weird, repressed, or fanatical.

The specter of young, innocent girls being led astray because their repressive parents didn’t allow them to learn “the facts of life” might have been plausible 50 or 60 years ago, but like “Wordslinger” says, I doubt that happens too often today. In this day and age and culture, complaining that teens don’t have enough access to information about sex and birth control is like complaining about the 1930s Dust Bowl while a flash flood is raging outside your home.

Comment by Bookworm Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 5:52 pm
I’ve never seen an issue where so many, who think so seldom think they are so right.

I happen to be a Christian and believe abortion is about as wrong as it gets. I equate it to slavery and, as Lincoln said “if slavery isn’t wrong then nothing is wrong”.

I am more than happy to let God be the judge on this issue but the Bible is full of examples of society’s brought to ruin when they lost their moral standards. Just as the United States had to, and in some regards continues to, pay a devistating price for our complicity in the slave trade, I believe we may be subject to the wrath of God for legalized abortion.

Comment by A Moral Mess Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 6:08 pm
I should emphasize again, however, that it’s NOT sex education per se that is the problem, so much as the attitude or underlying assumptions upon which it is based. Teens need accurate information about sex and birth control in a world where they will be exposed to a lot of grossly distorted information. They also need to be encouraged — not discouraged — from following the moral values they have been taught.

Also, I think a lot fewer women would have abortions if other women who had abortions were more willing to talk about the pain they carry — physical and emotional. Now, I can understand completely why they don’t — they don’t want pro-lifers calling them baby killers, or pro-choicers implying that they are undermining the cause of women’s rights — and I would never compel or pressure any woman to go public with that kind of extremely personal information. But maybe it’s time women were encouraged to share their experiences in some kind of neutral, non-judgmental forum. Even those who are staunchly pro-choice and believe they did the right thing will acknowledge that it was painful physically and emotionally and they would rather have avoided the experience.

Comment by Bookworm Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 6:35 pm
Bill sez=Not true. As usual you are mistaking your own ill formed opinions as facts=

Isn’t that your MO, my friend?

AA is pro-life, but doesn’t want to:

-impose my view on others,

-have the government regulate this issue, or

-see this issue used to score cheap political points.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 6:36 pm
I was pro-choice when I thought the number of abortions a year was one or two thousand. Nationally. Life of the mother and all that trumped up rhetoric. I also thought abortion was a simple flush, not an incision to the head. I never was comfortable with how passionate about abortion other pro-choice people were, so it was sort of a relief to identify as pro-life. I never really changed how I was so much as how I identified.

Comment by T.J. Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 7:18 pm
T.J.
It’s not “an incision to the head.” At six weeks, the procedure is the same as a D&C after a woman miscarries. Just to clarify.

Comment by Momof2 Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 7:47 pm
I ain’t touchin’ this one with a ten foot pole.

Comment by Snidely Whiplash Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 7:55 pm
Conflicted.

I practice what I preach. When the topic came up for us, we had the child. Can’t say that I will ever regret that, and at this point it’s kind of fun to have a kid driving (legally!) before I’m 34…

Pro-life on the ethical merits, even in the case of rape or incest. Why should the innocent party, the child, suffer for the crime of his father?
Death penalty is OK, for certain extenuating
crimes.

BUT. As a small government guy, I don’t see any (ahem) viable way of enforcing anti-abortion law.
I don’t want them telling me what kind of guns to buy, books to read, what I can write, what drugs I can take or what kind of job I can do; I certainly don’t want them involved in a healthcare decision like that. Nor do I really trust the government to have enough on the ball to do the death penalty fairly. Anyone who has worked for the government ought to know they can’t do it.

So Small Government trumps both for me as an ideal. China’s child limitation policies ought to be enough to make anyone cringe - we are very fortunate to have the argument be about preventing the ending of pregnancies instead of the government presuming to end or limit your pregnancies.

I think Roe V Wade should be overturned and thrown back to the states on the grounds that it is a Constitutional overreach. (But I don’t know what I’d want the states to do about it, again, erring on the side of smaller government and privacy.)

And then there’s the hard-nosed, bastard Darwinian in me who says if you want to self select yourself out of the gene pool with an abortion, maybe that’s for the best.

Comment by Frank Sobotka Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 8:30 pm
maybe I went into moderation, I don’t know, never saw my post so here it is agian.

I believe life begins once the egg is fertilized and implants. At that point, assuming nothing interrupts or interferes, the result is going to be a human being. Not a cow, a bird, or anything but a human. With constitutional rights. Their only fault is they are too small and weak to advocate for themselves. We call it murder to euthanize an elderly person in this country, who is also weak an unable to defend themselves. So it should be too, at the small end of the scale. The arbitrary boundaries we’ve made in this area make little philosophical sense to me and they are merely a construction of convenience.

This idea of basing decisions on “viability outside the womb” seems crazy to me: No baby I know of can survive outside the womb alone for days, let alone YEARS. The point in development when a baby can keep on breathing if the umbilical is cut is no reasonable decision point for “viability”, if that’s to be the deciding point for allowing an abortion. Kill a one-year-old: it’s murder. Six-month-old, same, One- week, old, murder, one-day-old: murder still. Minus-one-day? Say, as a result of accident or an assault on the mother? Currently, that is considered a murder as well. So to me, inside or outside a womb, it’s really an artificial distinction, and a stupid one.

The only place it makes sense to me to draw a dividing line is conception. If the two components never meet and implant, that conception never happens, and either component alone cannot ever be more than they are.

We should be making it easier to prevent that meeting in the first place, where women or couples do not wish to have children. What we think personally or morally of the act of intercourse, when and where it should or should not occur, should have nothing to do with the prevention of pregnancy and disease. When people choose to go ahead and fornicate, they have to understand and accept the risks, and have access to precautions.

Should those precautions fail, and a life accidentally be formed, we should as a society protect that new human life by offering prenatal support and adoption help to the mothers, as an alternative to abortion. We have to stop this split-personality thinking where we can get Viagra on insurance but not birth control pills for women, IUD’s or patches, and condoms. How do you say you respect life, if you punish women for nurturing and carrying it? That’s why we were big donators to St. Monica’s for a long time.

We’re not doing enough education, because stupid people can’t make a distinction between health education and religious indoctrination. It’s a quasi-Victorian idea that ignorance means there will be abstinence, and every study proves that approach fails. With the most tragic results. If you want to reduce abortions, you reduce teen pregnancy, do that by education and access to prevention, because not everybody is afraid of going to hell for touching someone of the opposite sex. Our kids need to know where babies come from, something every prairie state farm kid and any kid in a third-world mud-hole understands in general before they are ten. And I DON’T mean we’re teaching kids the Kama-Sutra, or advocating sexual experimentation before they are mature, but they have to know in a practical sense that kids are born when two adults are sexually intimate. What’s important for them to understand is that the responsible adults choose when is the best time to be that intimate: hopefully, when they have made a stable-long-term partnership to take care of the children they will make together, and that choosing to be intimate in that way carries an incredible responsibility.

After all that, why do I call myself conflicted? Because I would leave Roe where it is. I would let it stand, but I would do everything I could, to offer means and support so that abortion truly is a rare and last resort, in the same way any euthanasia decision is made. The last thing abortion should be considered as is easy and cheap birth control.

Comment by Conflicted Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 9:09 pm
I am heartened to see such a largely rational and calm discussion of this topic. I wish the national discourse were this well thought out and civil on both sides.
I believe abortion is a morally wrong decision. It is not the decision I would make for myself, nor would I want to have to attempt to justify that decision when I meet my Maker. BUT, I just don’t see what societal interest there is in imposing that sense of morality on the population as a whole. Certainly we legislate morality in situations where society has a direct interest such as murder, theft, assault, etc, but how does society benefit from putting would-be mothers and doctors in jail? Let’s be honest, the current polarized debate over abortion in this country is designed solely to generate cash for both sides of the fued. Neither side is actually interested in finding solutions. If that were the case, much more energy and money would be invested in care and counseling for women facing this difficult situation, for honest, open and frank sex education and more aggressive adoption efforts. I think everyone who has posted here has agreed that this world would be a better place if we worked towards eliminating abortions. So why not focus our energy on efforts that could actually work towards that end. Overturning Roe v. Wade does nothing to address the root issue. It does nothing to change our hearts or reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Comment by S. Illinois Thursday, Oct 16, 08 @ 10:47 pm
Life is the most important thing we have. We have all kinds of choices in “life”. We can be honest or dishonest, good parents or bad. The un born child does not have that choice. I am pro-Life, because of many factors. I didn’t start out that way but as circumstances entered into my life I became Pro-Life and have raised my two daughters and now educating 6 Grand children to carry on the mantel. The story is long and not enough stace. That said if people would give un born choldren the same compassion as those those seeking to protect animal rights or save a tree, then maybe we woulden’t be having this discussion.
God will judge us ultimately on our views and actions whe we stand before Him on that Judgement day. Until then I shall never vote for a political candidate that supports abortion except to save the life of the mother.

Comment by The Conservative Friday, Oct 17, 08 @ 7:31 am
I’m very proudly pro-choice. I’m proudly a single mother, who was told by the “dirtbag” (his attorneys word, not mine) when we broke up to either have an abortion or give the baby up for adoption. Neither was my option.

I love my son more than any other living being, but I also believe it should be an individual choice and not the Governments right to choose for me or anyone else.

Having an abortion is a deeply personal, and not an easy, decision. It’s something a person lives with forever. Not something to be entered into lightly and not something done as a contraceptive choice.

I’ve been in a positon to have to make the choice on my own, long ago. I also was told to make the decision again. I have a better life now for the choices I’ve made. No one should ever have that much control over another person.

And like others have said, the only one who can judge me, or anyone, in the end, is God (or your own higher power).

Comment by Wickedred Friday, Oct 17, 08 @ 3:38 pm

Add a comment

Sorry, comments are closed at this time.

Previous Post: Giannoulias a bright spot on a dismal day
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax

Last 10 posts:

Reader comments closed for the weekend (11-22)
Isabel’s afternoon roundup (11-22)
The Waukegan City Clerk was railroaded (11-22)
Whatever happened, the city has a $40 million budget hole it didn't disclose until now (11-22)
Manar gives state agencies budget guidance: Cut, cut, cut (11-22)
Roundup: Ex-Chicago Ald. Danny Solis testifies in Madigan corruption trial (11-22)
Open thread (11-22)
Isabel’s morning briefing (11-22)
SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password) (11-22)
Live coverage (11-22)