Pregnant with Potential


Four years ago, we
made great strides as pro-life democrats when the Democratic National Committee
allowed us to unveil our proposal to reduce abortion at its headquarters in Washington, DC.  It was a signal that pro-life democrats were
no longer on the outside of the Party. 
It opened a new era of inclusion and cooperation between those of us who
disagreed with the Party platform on the issue of abortion and pro-choice
Democrats who wanted to find commonly supported measures to lower the number of
abortions.

Today, we are hearing
more and more Americans in both parties and on all points of the political
spectrum call for common ground solutions to this most divisive issue that has
plagued our nation for 36 years.  President
Obama consistently spoke about the need to address the root causes of abortion
in speeches starting in the campaign season. 
More recently he charged his Office of Community and Faith Based
Initiatives and the White House Council on Women and Girls to come up with a
common ground plan for America.  His leadership on this issue has both
encouraged and inspired Democrats For Life of America to keep calling for
progress on this issue. 

We are proud to stand
with the President, groups and individuals who are truly committed to finding
areas of agreement so we can work together to dramatically reduce the number of
women seeking abortion services and help women with crisis pregnancies who wish
to carry to term.   Unfortunately there
are still some who will want to set roadblocks before common-ground proposals
in order to maintain a perceived political advantage by perpetuating the stale
argument over who is right and wrong on the issue of abortion.  

We are confident that
America
will continue to rally behind those of us committed to finding common
ground.  Recent polling released by Gallup indicated that
only a small percentage, 23 percent of respondents believe that abortion should
be illegal in all circumstances and an near equally small percentage, 22
percent, believe abortion should be legal under any circumstance.    

It is reasonable to
discern that we may never find agreement among the small percentage of
advocates that cling to the purist position on their side of the abortion
debate.  But DFLA is committed to
standing up to those who are intransigent and those who are all too ready to
impede any cooperative attempt. 

The Pregnant Women
Support Act is the first truly bi-partisan bill that will do just that.  It has support from both pro-life activists,
including Doug Kmiec and pro-choice advocates, including, Pro-Choice Scholar
Activist Susan Kelley, as well as pro-choice elected officials including
Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL) and pro-life elected officials like Congressman
Lincoln Davis (D-TN) and Senator Bob Casey (D-PA).   

PWSA addresses areas
of agreement such as prohibiting health insurance companies from denying
pregnant women coverage because they consider her pregnancy a pre-existing
condition and providing more support for violence against pregnant women who
are often forced by a boyfriend or husband to undergo an abortion because the
men want to avoid the financial responsibility.   

The PWSA provide
grants to colleges and universities to establish and operate pregnant and parenting
student service offices so women do not have to choose between having a baby or
completing their education.  The office
will focus on ensuring that women have a safe place to bring their child while
they complete their education. The office would also advocate for maternity
coverage in student health plans, and provide family housing, child care,
flexible schedules, education, provisions of maternity and baby clothing and
post-partum counseling and support, and referrals for prenatal care, delivery, infant
and foster care or adoption. 

PWSA increases
support for WIC. Only 1 in 10 people eligible for the program participate for
several reasons including: difficulty in signing up or access to a store that
accepts the electronic benefit.  Stores
in mostly rural and inner city areas are unable to process WIC benefits because
they don’t have the equipment.  Some
women are kicked off for making a minor mistake in the application process.

Regardless of where
one stands on the abortion issue, DFLA extends an olive branch to any and all
who are willing to work with us to provide needed support to women who wish to
carry their pregnancies to term.  We
believe that common ground isn’t only possible, it is imminent.  We recognize that people on both sides of the
abortion debate may have concerns about certain provisions of the PWSA and
believe that these hamper its common ground potential; such concerns include
coverage for unborn children under SCHIP, funding "life support
centers" or the overall cost of the bill. 
However, we are ready to try to address these concerns with any and all
who are willing to put progress over partisanship and work toward a common
ground solution.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with Kristen Day please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • invalid-0

    Unfortunately there are still some who will want to set roadblocks before common-ground proposals in order to maintain a perceived political advantage by perpetuating the stale argument over who is right and wrong on the issue of abortion.

    If you’re trying to deny the validity of the concern about who’s right and who’s wrong on the issue of legal restrictions on abortion, you’ll never find common ground. The idea should be to just set that argument aside. It’s a necessary hurdle, not a roadblock. Plus, while giving Doug Kmiec props isn’t necessarily a bad thing, you might have pointed out that many Catholic bishops also support PWSA. Common Ground is more than potential. It exists and needs to be exploited.

  • invalid-0

    “We are confident that America will continue to rally behind those of us committed to finding common ground.”

    Great point–now join me in condemning Barack Obama and the majority of Democrats who voted AGAINST THE FAMILY ADOPTION TAX CREDIT in 2007. If they want to make abortion “safe, legal, and RARE”, why didn’t they support lower and middle income families who want to adopt and could use some help with the tens of thousands of dollars in fees–many at the Federal and State level–for adoption-related processes?

    Where’s the common ground in obama and vast majority of Democrats making it more difficult to adopt childrena nd give them LIFE instead of DEATH?

    Let’s make “Common Ground” more than a euphemism for “DIMINISHING THE RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN” and protecting the pro-choice status quo in which unborn children are given no rights and wone are not encouraged to give their children a chance at life through adoption!

  • invalid-0

    In Canada, we basically have most of what the US is planning on implementing to “reduce the number of abortions” and I will tell you how the story starts and ends – it doesn’t matter how much you offer people for free, these are not at the root of why women get abortions, the root cause: selfishness.

    Should women and families be helped? Yes, absolutely. But, these “reduction schemes” don’t work at decreasing abortions, let’s be clear. Here’s what I’ve observed in Canada: Many women continue to take what they can get and still get abortions because the root cause it that they don’t want the child who is considered a burden, so it doesn’t matter how much help and money you give them. It’s all about freedom without kids, not that we can’t afford them or afford birth control.

    All birth control has a failure rate and let’s be honest the more sex one has the more times they will get pregnant “by accident” which equals more abortions. This “reduction” scheme does not work.

    In Canada, here’s what we have, yet 30% of all pregnancies end in abortion, the highest group between 20-24 yrs old:

    1.Free health care for all,
    2.incredibly generous tax credits for children,
    3.free counselling available everywhere for anyone,
    4.easy child adoption for both mother and child with a looong list of parents waiting to adopt,
    5.one year paid maternity leave,
    6. welfare that pays more than a full-time minimum wage job plus extra money for baby furniture and children’s clothing at the change of seasons plus $500 a year/child put in an education fund from the government plus free transportation passes plus free dental care, free medication, free eye glasses.
    7. cheap, cheap birth control given out at health units to anyone who asks
    8. University loans/grants are easily obtained

    Canada is a dream land for women who can have as much free stuff as they want, as much abortion as they want, as much sex as they want, as much birth control as they want ……and NO responsibility…it’s all about ME..that’s the root cause..now curing that will decrease abortions, in fact, probably end them.

  • invalid-0

    “selfishness…they don’t want the child who is considered a burden…it’s all about ME..that’s the root cause..now curing that will decrease abortions, in fact, probably end them.”

    Do you have any suggestions for how to ‘cure’ this problem? Or is this just a rant on how civilization is doomed because women are out of male control?

    I have a suggestion – let’s make MEN 100% responsible for the fate of their sperm! Using shaming and blaming for immorality, lurid stories about how disgusting and unhealthy sex is, and social stigma to encourage men to look unattractive so as not to encourage women’s lust, we could enforce abstinence on all men and there won’t be any irresponsible sex, unwanted pregnancies or abortion.

  • invalid-0

    First, I am a woman. Second, these men rants I find really pathetic since as a woman I take 100% responsibility for my own actions. Third, how can one reduce selfishness? Well, for starters, women should be proud, but not selfish, and take responsibility for their bodies and their actions without ranting against others or hurting others (including a conceived child). Be who you were made to be – a woman – and be proud. There is not one birth control method that is 100%, not one (why women fill themselves up with drugs when they’re only fertile three days in an entire the month still astonishes me, but that’s another post). The majority of women, married and unmarried, have unplanned pregnancies, that is how it’s alway been and always will be. But, so what? Children are not a curse for crying out loud. Let the kid have a chance at life. It’s embarrassing to read women saying “it’s my body, I can do what I want!” Ummm…gee, no kidding! A woman can kill their unborn child, they can beat their born kids, too, if they really want. Should those be acceptable actions? No. They’re both selfish actions. Give the child to someone else, give them a chance at life…our mother’s gave us a chance, afterall.

  • invalid-0

    I basically liked the article. However, I thought it was a big mistake to refer to people who believe that all abortions should be legal or all should be illegal as “purists.” I guess that makes me a “purist” on the pro-life side. People who believe 100% of all abortions should be legal, or illegal (hereafter referred to as “100%-ers”), can also support common ground measures. I know I do. Beinig a 100%-er does not logically entail opposition to common ground measures.

    As for the discussion in some of the comments about selfishness, selfiishness (primarily of fathers, mothers, and/or parents of minors) is indeed the primary factor causing abortion, but law & politics cannot remedy selfishness. Common ground measures focus on those causes of abortion that may to some extent be ameliorated by legal measures. With all their limitations, common ground measures are worth pursuing. Addressing selfishness is indeed absolutely essential, but it must be pursued in the spiritual and educational realms.

  • colleen

    such concerns include coverage for unborn children under SCHIP

    I don’t expect an answer to this but would like to know what this even means. I know that under Bush the GOP demonstrated their absolute contempt for women and particularly for low income women by extending health coverage to ‘unborn children’ but not to the woman in whose body said ‘unborn child’ resides.
    A normal person would conclude that extending health coverage to a pregnant woman would also include the ‘unborn child’ and I take this to mean that centrist Democrats intend to continue the practice started by the GOP and extend coverage solely to the ‘unborn child’. Is this accurate? If not, what does (health) “coverage for unborn children” look like?

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • invalid-0

    John I appreciate that you value the sanctity of human life and certainly adoption is better than abortion, but neither is as ideal as allowing a woman to carry her child safely to term and then raise him/her. Certainly, there are parents who are a danger to their children and those children need to be raised away from that parent. In rare cases they may even need to be raised away from the whole extended family. But, if my tax dollars are going to help support a new baby; I want that assistance to go to the child’s natural mother. If the assistance comes in the form of tax breaks, fine. If you are adopting a child out of the foster care system then, I agree that the tax break should go to you. But, don’t exploit some unmarried mother for her poverty to get her child and then argue that you now deserve a tax break. I find it very difficult to believe that you are spending tens of thousands of dollars in fees to adopt a child through the foster care system.

  • invalid-0

    cmarie, I usually don’t agree with you at all as I’m not into the pro-lifer thing but gotta give you an amen on this one.

  • http://projectgrant.info invalid-0

    Hi,

    • We have just added your latest post “Pregnant with Potential” to our http://www.projectgrant.info. You can check the inclusion of the post, Visit ”http://projectgrant.info/story.php?title=pregnant-with-potential” We are delighted to invite you to submit all your future posts to the directory for getting a huge base of visitors to your website and gaining a valuable backlink to your site.

    Warm Regards

    Project Grant Team
    http://www.projectgrant.info

  • invalid-0

    thank you I understand this is entirely seperate from the abortion issue but that’s great if we can all agree to some support for young parents- maybe there is common ground after all.

  • colleen

    I would also like to point out that Artur Davis, described above by Kristen Day as ‘pro-choice’ has a 30% rating from NARAL and the best that can be said about him is that he has a mixed record on issues affecting women’s reproductive rights and usually has voted with conservatives on abortion issues. While I certainly understand that anti-abortion purists like ‘Democrats for Life’, would count him as ‘pro-choice’ and that in comparison most of the pols on DfL’s (now secret) membership rolls he does appear pro-choice the fact remains that he is not.

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • paul-bradford

    I have a suggestion – let’s make MEN 100% responsible for the fate of their sperm! Using shaming and blaming for immorality, lurid stories about how disgusting and unhealthy sex is, and social stigma to encourage men to look unattractive so as not to encourage women’s lust, we could enforce abstinence on all men and there won’t be any irresponsible sex, unwanted pregnancies or abortion. 

     

    It really is possible to reduce abortions without putting 100% of the burden of sacrifice on to women.  I’ve long proposed that it ought to be unlawful for a man to impregnate a woman against her will (just as it’s unlawful for him to have sex with her against her will).  If a man makes an unwilling woman pregnant he should compensate her for the pain and suffering involved in carrying an unintended pregnancy to term.

     

    Women might still choose to have abortions, but a lot fewer of them would be placed in the position of feeling that they needed one.

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • invalid-0

    I don’t think John has all his facts right on Obama’s vote on this, but the tax credit is a valid issue.

    Plus, cmarie’s comment about adoption being a form of exploitation reveals very little understanding of the adoption process. In states like Louisiana, where many of the children in foster care are African-America, but where the state prohibits transracial adoptions, options for some are limited. And certainly, it’s not only poor women who place their children for adoption.

    Adoption is an intense and difficult process for everyone involved, that’s why it’s so rare. Comments like cmarie’s and everyone who seconded her are unfair, unkind, unhelpful and probably not in the spirit of this website.

  • invalid-0

    In fact, the abortion rate among Canadian citizens, with all those failed policies, is about one-third less than it is among U.S. citizens. That’s about 14 abortions per 1,000 Canadian women versus nearly 20 among U.S. women.

    A one-third drop in the abortion rate in the U.S. would be about 400,000 fewer abortions each year. Maybe those policies are worth looking into.

  • invalid-0

    Does voting for common sense safeguards like parental notification with judicial override really make someone less pro-choice in any reasonable sense? If everything is characterized as a “slippery slope,” as NARAL characterizes every reasonable safeguard, then there will never be common ground.

    And is comparing your opponent to the Taliban really an honest way to begin a common ground dialogue?

  • colleen

    I’m not interested in debating NARAL’s ratings with you, much less your notions of what is and is not reasonable or common sense.

    The fact of the matter and my point  is that many people in Congress ARE accurately described as pro-choice. Indeed on this list there are many, many actual Democrats with 100% scores from NARAL. They are pro-choice. It’s also true that Artur Davis’s 30% is one of the lower scores amoungst Democrats. In reality, he has a mixed voting record, tending towards the right and isn’t anyone I would like to see making decisions about the reproductive health of women. But, then, neither is anyone else that speaks for DfL.

    In the happy ‘centrist’ Trojan Horse I was replying to he is the sole elected politician Ms Day describes as ‘pro-choice’ and  backing this "bi-partisan" bill. And his voting record is not that of a pro-choice politician. I view the poffered ‘olive branch’ with massive amounts of scepticism.

    piss. leg. raining. Y’all know the drill

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • invalid-0

    NARAL’s scores include votes for or against the most modest limitations, like the aforementioned parental notification laws. The idea that having a less-than-100% score from them means you aren’t completely pro-choice is ridiculous. If that’s true, then the overwhelming majority of the public is also anti-choice, because they support all those common-sense restrictions and then some.

  • colleen

    The idea that having a less-than-100% score from them means you aren’t completely pro-choice is ridiculous.

    No, letting DfL redefine ‘pro-choice’ views to the point where it can claim that Artur Davis represents the pro-choice movement and then trying to marginalize everyone to his left is what is ridiculous, not to mention insulting to the intelligence of the majority of Democrats who do not share his or DfL’s views.. Artur Davis is a conservative Democrat from a conservative state, a state where, incidentally, he wants to run for Governor in 2010. (which, considering what happened to the last Dem Governor from Alabama sounds…foolish)
    If he is the sole ‘pro-choice’ Democrat this a fairly exclusive and limited piece of ‘common ground’ unless, of course, the ground we’re speaking of is ‘ground’ between socially conservative Democrats and Republicans.

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • invalid-0

    The term “common ground” increasingly reads as “the state-owned uterus” for me, and what basically amounts to debating over who “deserves” reproductive rights and who doesn’t. I’ve long believed that the number of abortions had will reflect exactly the number of abortions required, and that it should be an entirely neutral medical decision between a woman and her physician, not something to be kicked around as a political football. As neutral as getting a bad tooth extracted, or a wart removed. Not something that needs to be justified to all and sundry based on some ever-changing, nebulous notion of selfishness versus selflessness. What other medical procedures are so heavily legislated as abortion? Nearly none. The world doesn’t think females should be allowed to own their bodies and by extension, the contents thereof. I’ve long believed there should be no restrictions placed on abortion, it should be written into stone and access should be liberal and universal. There is no baby until birth, anything else is the woman’s business, and her partner’s, family, or clergy’s if she so wishes. It’s not a case of “allowing” women reproductive rights, but them being central to her existence from birth. If I ruled the world…

  • invalid-0

    In short, that’s why the “safe but rare” and “sad but sometimes necessary” and common ground arguments irk me. It is self-defeating to argue that of course women who seek abortions only do so for “serious” reasons like when it is medically necessary. When we do that we are supporting the idea that women should want to be mothers and that society should sit in judgement of women’s decisions. We are undermining the argument for women’s agency by submitting to the “deserving/undeserving” dichotomy, much like the “virgin/whore” and “madonna/bad mother”. That fetus could become “life” or a person, but I’ll accord it the same consideration I do the “life” of a plant. If there’s one thing we’ve learned from history, it’s that there’s no inherent definition of a “person”, and a lot of the time women aren’t considered people. This is what made half the people in this country ambivalent and it undermines mine and other women’s choices.

  • invalid-0

    At least if you take science seriously, there is a very large difference between a plant and a human fetus…the latter is a fully genetically unique organism of the species homo sapiens and the former is not. One thing we ACTUALLY know from history is that when we let the powerful choose who are persons and who are not the weak and marginalized are seen as nonpersons (blacks, women, homosexuals, etc.) by those in power. Anytime we fight for justice we ‘sit in judgment’ over people’s decisions…whether its with regard to who can get married, whether schools should allow a student through its doors, or whether a particular person can vote. We cannot default to a privacy and choice ethic when it come to personhood and moral status…the weak and marginalized will take the fall.

  • invalid-0

    While the word exploit might be a little extreme…cmarie’s comment had nothing to do with children that are not adoptable due to legal barriers preventing the adoption where the mother will relinquish them. cmarie even mentions cases where there are reasons why they shouldn’t be raised by their natural mother.

    To what cmarie wrote – yes, your right….its unkind, unfair and not helpful for someone to want to assist the natural mother who really wants to raise her child but just needs some assistance /*snark*/. Whether you happen to agree with cmaries comments or not, cmarie has been a long time commenter on this site.

  • invalid-0

    …and has every right to continue expressing opinions here.

  • invalid-0

    In re: “comments not in the spirit of this website….”

    what is the standard of “helpfulness?” Only those that agree with your points or positions?

    It seems to me you are confusing pre-determined agreement, of which there is none here on any point, as far as I can have read so far, versus debate and vigorous discussion.

  • colleen

     Adoption is an intense and difficult process for everyone involved,
    that’s why it’s so rare. Comments like cmarie’s and everyone who
    seconded her are unfair, unkind, unhelpful and probably not in the
    spirit of this website.

     

    Allow me to also second cmarie’s comment, then. I was in complete agreement with her when I read it and now am even more so.. 

     

     

     

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • invalid-0

    thank you I understand this is entirely seperate from the abortion issue but that’s great if we can all agree to some support for young parents- maybe there is common ground after all.

    Absolutely cmarie….to be honest you and I have been against each other elsewhere on RHRC (I know anonymous is a rather large category so you don’t know who *I* am in the field of other Anons). Peace and blessings to you.

  • invalid-0

    I find that one-third drop really interesting, because years ago when the State of Alaska created the State insurance program Denali KidCare to provide SCHIP medical care to low-incomne children and pregnant women, the abortion rate here also dropped one-third. If one-third of women are having abortions due to lack of funds for medical care, providing those funds would be a fairly easy fix for the problem of women having to choose abortion because it is cheaper than prenatal care and delivery.

  • invalid-0

    “We cannot default to a privacy and choice ethic when it come to personhood and moral status…the weak and marginalized will take the fall.”

    The weak and marginalized always take the fall, and this present controversy is particularly dizzying because BOTH of the parties actually concerned are ‘weak and marginalized’, the pregnant woman who is considered too unstable/immoral to be trusted with the choice or whose live is considered irrelevant to the issue and the ‘innocent fetus’.

    The ones who demand the power to make all the decisions for both, of course, are the rich white men in charge of the world, the ones who don’t want to have their taxes pay for prenatal care (reward women for being promiscuous) or pay for welfare to feed those children once they’re born (undermine personal responsibility).

    And no matter what rules they impose, they won’t personally ever be inconvenienced by them, as males they won’t get pregnant, their wealth will allow any unwanted pregnancies they’re responsible for to be ‘taken care of quietly’ and their personal sense of entitlement as special cases allows them to break the rules they think it’s so important that the ‘little people’ follow.

  • invalid-0

    crowepps, these are the stories that have to get out there, but aren’t even part of the discussion. When women face fewer constraints, they need fewer abortions. Win-win.

    When these linkages are made clear, pro-life voters who care about results more than empty moralizing won’t likely be voting for conservative politicians who oppose health care reforms. The liberal coalition gets bigger. The right to choose becomes more secure.

  • invalid-0

    This is interesting and will provide for some colorful commentary, I’m sure: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/godingovernment/2009/06/by_jacqueline_l_salmon_below.html?hpid=news-col-blog

  • invalid-0

    Interestingly, the ‘rich white men in charge of the world’ are the ones that instituted and protect abortion on demands most fiercely. That is because men have such a large stake in keeping abortion on demand legal. Far more women than men are anti-abortion…and are generally more suspicious of using violence to solve problems. Almost no one thinks that a woman’s interests matters not at all (as you say above)…which is why almost no one thinks that a woman doesn’t have the right to kill a fetus in self-defense. What they do argue, of course, is in that in any fair comparison of interests, the right to life trumps all other rights and interests.

  • invalid-0

    Actually many polls show around 10% oppose abortion in all cases.

    And whose right to self-defense prevails? The innocent fetus’ right to stop an attack against it?

  • invalid-0

    That’s because many don’t see abortion in self-defense (especially if it is an indirect abortion) as an abortion. I suppose if the fetus were capable of defending her life that is something we should take into consideration. But when a women chooses to have an abortion in such a case its ‘life vs life’, yes? In almost all other cases its far less of a serious matter…life vs. job…life vs. going to the beach…life vs. sex selection preference…life vs. social stigma. Etc. Now that doesn’t mean that we don’t work to mitigate some these other interest (that’s part of what this site is about) but it does mean that we need to call a spade a spade and not fall back into a choice ethic where the marginal interests of the strong dominate the serious interests of the weak.

  • invalid-0

    I was just replying to your using the term self-defense.
    The fetus doesn’t need to be capable, others can come to the fetus defense whether direct or indirect methods are being used against it. The woman took the risk of death from getting pregnant. Death from pregnancy is not only natural but it is no less a risk that she took than any other outcome of pregnancy. The fetus took no such risk.

  • colleen

    The woman took the risk of death from getting pregnant. Death from
    pregnancy is not only natural but it is no less a risk that she took
    than any other outcome of pregnancy.

     

    Ahhh, just feel that Christian ‘love’.

     

     

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • therealistmom

    So if a woman gets raped and is impregnated by her rapist, and develops a complication from said pregnancy, she should just fucking DIE?! Pardon my language but I am so bloody astounded by this callousness that I can’t come up with something much more coherent than that.

    Death from pregnancy is not only natural but it is no less a risk that she took than any other outcome of pregnancy.

    Actually, if the woman had had an abortion her risk of death would be much lower than carrying to term, complications or no.

    The fetus took no such risk.

    Of course not. The fetus can’t do ANYTHING. It is not its own entity. It cannot think, feel, or live independently of the parasitic relationship it has with the woman.

  • invalid-0

    Its a question for the anti-abortion frame. However rape would be different case.

  • invalid-0

    The woman took the risk of death from getting pregnant. Death from pregnancy is not only natural but it is no less a risk that she took than any other outcome of pregnancy.

    Oh Goody! “Not tonight, I have a headache, Honey” can now be replaced with “Not tonight nor anytime in the foreseeable future, Honey, as I do not feel like running the risk of dying just now.”

    Divorce lawyers rejoice!

  • invalid-0

    These discussions almost always omit the reality of Nature’s sexism: it’s human biology that pregnant women are biologically forced to expend her resources in a way the man who fertilized her egg is not. From my point of view, not allowing the state to interfere with women’s & family’s reproductive decisions is a sort of “affirmative action” remedy to mitigate the inherent discrimination.


    If there’s any blame, I think it’s on Nature for not separating pleasure & procreation rather than women making bad choices. Plus there’s millenia of oligarchical/patriarchal societies treating women (and poor people) as property, which has influenced the intellectual discussion about what society expects of women.

    Often the “reasonable” restrictions aren’t “reasonable” when considering the long term effect of being forced or coerced into continuing an unwanted pregnancy. It seems that it’s OK to discuss the obligation of a woman to her fetus divorced from the risks of pregnancy, the effects on her ability to keep a job or fulfill obligations to her family. It always seems OK to say that the doctor must provide “proof” of imminent maternal harm isn’t demanding acceptance of unreasonable risk.

    If a woman has to have society’s permission to end an unwanted pregnancy, then women are second class citizen — the same way the poor are second class citizens, because the laws aren’t applied equally to men & women and rich & poor. Since nature is sexist, the way for society not to be sexist rather than amplify the sexism is to not interfere with the woman’s private decision. If strangers interfere, it’s sex and class discrimination because men and rich people wouldn’t be as affected as women and poor families.

    I understand that you believe a fetus is a weak person that whose [presumed] interest to be born deserves protection by the state against the pregnant woman who is host to the fetus if that woman decides to harm the fetus — but there’s no way to give rights to the fetus without taking liberty from the host. I think you would say that the fetus’ “right to life” is of more importance than the pregnant woman’s “temporary liberty” — but the effects of a forced or coerced pregnancy & birth are not “temporary” or even “marginal”. I think the current situation is unfair to pregnant women because the compromise of Roe v. Wade is often made moot because of lack of access.

  • therealistmom

    Maybe, if we should have to risk dying from pregnancy, since its a foreseeable risk of having sex, we should be able to implement an equal chance of a man being “inconvenienced” or potentially die? Since nature failed to make things equal in that department… maybe like a certain percentage risk that he loses that body part he holds dear, and from that a percentage of risk that he’ll die from the loss.

  • invalid-0

    Hey Realist Mom…the “man” probably won’t die from the loss…but he will no doubt feel like killing himself…for the rest of his life. Sounds fair to me.

    Good Lord. Does it get more ridiculous? There are actually people out there who believe women should be punished with death…for having sex.

    Where can any discussion go from there?

  • invalid-0

    … another idiotic manifestation of the social structure that whatever men do, they become less culpable, but whatever women do, they are more culpable.

    If Anon were to develop lung cancer because of smoking, we should have the right to tell him that he should shut up and drop dead because it’s all natural and shit and he brought it on himself by being “irresponsible” and participating in a perfectly legal activity?

    No, we don’t. Because it’s fucking stupid and irrevocably cruel.

    However, it’s perfectly reasonable to demand women pay with their lives for doing things men participate in freely?

  • therealistmom

    … we also need to let anyone who is in a car accident take their chances too, because they know that dying is a foreseeable event if they drive a vehicle, they should have just walked like gawd meant us to, damnit! And if someone is drowning they should not have gone swimming, they assumed that risk by going in the water. Only thing is, those examples aren’t OK because they don’t punish women for having the audacity to have sex.

    I swear reading this site is going to put me from “mildly bisexual, with the right woman” to straight over the top lesbian. At least then I don’t have some asshole saying it’s perfectly legitimate to get pregnant against my will and die from complications because its an “assumed risk” of sex. Of course, then I have the same kind of assholes telling me I’m going to hell, but I can live with that.

  • invalid-0

    Thanks but I was just asking from within the anti-abortion frame we get here so much, how it resolves itself. Many do oppose it in all circumstances, and we hear all the time here that women should take the consequences of sex, pregnancy is natural, fetus is innocent, justice for the unborn, etc.

  • invalid-0

    And don’t change your sexuality just because of my post….only if you want to….I’ve been on the threads with you where you’ve given the car accident/other scenarios as pro-choice arguments in favor of abortion rights in general, not just when your life is endangered, given they are about having the right to get treatment even when your life itself isn’t at stake. I get that fully..and that the fetus can’t think, etc. in your post above. I was just wanting to know how they get to it. Peace.

  • invalid-0

    Death from pregnancy is not only natural but it is no less a risk that she took than any other outcome of pregnancy.

    Since some man got her pregnant, and the pregnancy killed her, it seems logical to me that he should be convinced of murder and sent to prison. After all, killing her is the risk he knowingly took when he got her pregnant.

    • invalid-0

      And likewise would extend to conviction of the lesser harms to the woman when that instead occurs through pregnancy.