Centerfield

If the Democratic Party is to regain majority status, it may need to give a little bit on the abortion issue.

The abortion issue is not the Democrats' to give ground on. The Supreme Court pretty much took care of that in 1973.

Wrong, Amy. Partial birth abortions, months 6, 7, 8, 8 1/2 ...

Maybe you're right -- just have Dems accept all of Bush's SC appointments.

Abortion is killing the Dems. Really! Not just the Roe effect, but the fact that pro-life people who care have all been booted out by rad-fems.

Adoption, instead of abortion, should be the position. Clinton should have pushed, hard, to make adoption easier, quicker, AND the preferred choice. When college co-eds understand, culturally, that abortion is more selfish than giving up their child for adoption, the numbers of abortions will go down.

But KERRY can NOT touch abortion ...
"I'm against it; but I always vote for it!"

When college co-eds understand, culturally, that abortion is more selfish than giving up their child for adoption, the numbers of abortions will go down.

Tom, I agree with this point, but I'd also add that the number of abortions will go down when the men and boys who participate in the making of the baby are held more strongly to account than they are today. Many men find out that their sperm did their biologically assigned job and then bail (physically, emotionally, & financially) faster than you can say Daddy. Even if you give your baby up for adoption, the *process* of pregnancy still requires physical, emotional, and financial assistance, preferably from the male that helped make the baby.

The real sticky problem, I think, is when you're talking about teenage girls. These girls don't have the mental or emotional maturity to make carefully thought out decisions (they shouldn't even be having sex, but I think that train has already left the station). And if we're talking about early teens, their bodies are more little girl than woman and really are not developed enough for the physical rigors of pregnancy. I'd wager that most teenage girls think that their parents would "kill them" if they ever found out they were sexually active, let alone pregnant. And often times, many of these girls *do* get ostracized from the family once Mom and/or Dad find out they're pregnant. So with this segment of "women" the problem isn't selfishness, it's fear. Children having children is a problem, and "fixing" abortion laws isn't going to solve that particular piece of the problem, and I think it would even make it worse. Then you will have those girls trying all kinds of ill-conceived "home remedies" to end that pregnancy, thus endangering their lives as well as the unborn child's.

I think many Dems could move a little more away from Roe v. Wade if there weren't so many problems with a one-size fits all approach.

Also, I did a little more reading on Roe v. Wade, and learned that

[Under Roe v. Wade] a woman c[an] have an abortion during the first two trimesters for any reason she deem[s] fit, whether it be an unplanned pregnancy, gender selection, convenience, or rape. In the last trimester the state has a right, although not an obligation, to restrict abortions to only those cases in which the mother's health is jeopardized. In sum, Roe v. Wade does not prevent a state from allowing unrestricted abortion for the entire nine months of pregnancy if it so chooses.

From an article by a Dr. Frank Beckwith, for what it's worth.

Read the entire article AmyE links, it's not very long.
The author's point is exactly the opposite of the out of context quote provided. Good article.

As far as Kerry's abortion position goes, I think the first rule of holes applies. IMO, bringing it may well equal continuing to dig. I agree with safe, legal, and rare, although I might that add encouraging reluctance could be a good idea, espcially because medical advances are likely to lead to an eventual collision between choice and viability.

I agree with Susan that Amy's citation left out some further points the author made, but the quote she used isn't factually inaccurate, and she did link to the article after all.

Beckwith's whole article is worth reading, but not worth accepting in its entirety at face value. He says that some courts and some states have construed health exceptions so as to allow 3rd trimester abortions for virtually any reason, but he doesn't provide any analysis of 3rd trimester abortions that would support his claim that that they're being allowed for "any reason." His argument boils down to health reasons being equal to "any reason" because courts have interpreted health reasons broadly.

If some or many 3rd trimester abortions are being allowed for trivial reasons and not serious health reasons, I find that troubling. But the unanswered question is whether they really are or not. What's the true nature of such abortions?

Beckwith is right that it is important to acknowledge that the 1% of total annual abortions that occur in the 3rd trimester amount to a still substantial number of abortions, about 15,000 annually. But ultimately, it's a big country, and I'd still like to know whether or not these abortions are being done blithely for trivial reasons or not, and that info is missing. If I saw such info, I sure would hope it wouldn't be anecdotal, because 5 stories about 15,000 abortions isn't good evidence. Personally, I think a fairly high bar should be set before 3rd trimester abortions are performed, but as I've been stressing, I don't really know what the true character of the current 3rd trimester abortions is. Even though "health reasons" MAY legally be construed broadly and so it's theoretically possible for current policy to be abused, the important question is whether current policies ARE being abused.

Absent specific evidence, I'm going to assume that even though it may currently be possible for women to abuse these policies, they aren't doing it in large numbers. In other words, I'm giving the women having 3rd trimester abortions the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that they are NOT blithe selfish slaughterers of nascent life, as is sometimes implied.

Serious thought on abortion within the Democrat party is vetoed by the radical feminist lobby. Party leadership stances on the issue will not move, so the only possible accomodation to centrists is a change in campaign rhetoric. Thus, Kerry announcing that he "personally opposes abortion", while maintaining a voting record in perfect harmony with the extremists in NARAL.

Those who learn what "partial birth abortion" actually involves, tend to oppose it. Over time, more learn. Polls show a slow but consistent movement in attitudes on abortion, year after year. The center is moving, but the Democrat party is not. This trend works against Democrat attempts to gain a majority in congress.

Thanks for sticking up for me, Brian. :-) I wasn't trying to use my quote as a tool to further my point, whatever that may be. I'm not even sure how I feel about abortion, to be honest with you--my stance on it has morphed as I've aged, and I'm less liberal than I was when I was 18. :-)

I was merely attempting to let you all know that I was trying to learn more about this court decision and whatever that entails. I linked to the article so you could come to your own conclusions. :-) If you feel it leans conservative, that's fine.

Serious thought on abortion within the Democrat party is vetoed by the radical feminist lobby. Party leadership stances on the issue will not move, so the only possible accomodation to centrists is a change in campaign rhetoric. Thus, Kerry announcing that he "personally opposes abortion", while maintaining a voting record in perfect harmony with the extremists in NARAL.

Susan, but I actually do agree with you on this whole point. Kerry cannot possibly come out now and start talking about the "struggle" he faces with regard to being Catholic and yet supporting abortion. The public will *totally* see that as an election ploy (which it would be), and it will fall flat on its face. I really think that Kerry doesn't need any more voices to listen to. The man needs to find his own.

Yeah, Carla, your dismissal is grossly inaccurate. According to the 2003 US Stat Abstract, for the last year of available numbers, we had a little over 4 million births and about 1.3 million abortions. That's not relatively few on either an absolute (1.3 million) or a comparative scale (a little more than 1 per every 4 births).

I suggest people who have opinions on this issue know what they are talking about. The stat ab is a good start to tell you some things about who's having them. As you would expect, teenagers and 19-24ers are more likely to choose them, as well as women over 40. Unmarried women are more than 4 times more likely to have them. Without breaking down the state-by-states, it appears at a glance that women from blue states are a lot more likely to have them than red state women. That might be cultural and it might be socioeconomic. probably a little of both.

With few exceptions, abortion rates are DOWN in the last decade. Carla wasa right about that. But who gets the credit for it? I'm sure many pro-choicers would disagree, but I think it's the pro-lifers for moving the ball. Personally, it doesn't matter to me, though. I am happy if both sides take staeps to push the number down, working towards "rare" even while disagreeing.

BK, I don't believe any of the 15000 were "medically necessary" today, to save the women's life. Each should have been a labor, premature birth, c-section, attempt to save the life of the fetal baby, despite its mother's desire for it to be dead, and out of her life. Doctors are supposed to save lives, remember; today, most 7 month premies and older live.

Tom, that's nice for you, since it completely relieves you of any burden to investigate the nature of 3rd trimester abortions and face whatever you find. Personally, I don't believe that respect for life requires that each be valued equally. Suppose for example I was married with 2 children and my wife was pregnant with a 3rd. Suppose aroundabout the 3rd trimester it became clear that my wife's health, which was poor, would be in serious jeopardy if efforts were made to surgically preserve the fetus.

Suppose she had adverse reactions to anesthesia and/or was in a weakened condition that made surgery dangerous. She might have cancer and need chemotherapy, or we might have just found out that she had a condition that made bleeding hard to control. I'm pretty sure there are cases like these, and for the sake of the whole family, I know I'd seriously consider whether to jeopardize my wife life if I genuinely felt she was in serious danger. And I'd want to be able to make the decision myself, along with my wife. And I'd respect the right of others in similar situations to make the decision how they saw fit.

Now I know that some people's values are such that they believe there is only one right decision in all such instances, and believe further that no one should be allowed by the government to make what they see as the wrong decision. I disagree with such people.

So unkless you are a doctor, I don't think your stated belief that no abortion is medically necessary if quite on target,

Some 3rd term abortions are indeed quite necessary for the health of the mother. Some are not, save perhaps in the very loose "mental health" sense. Some of the latter are performed for strictly contraceptive reasons on normal, healthy fetuses. I don't know of any honest (as compared to lobby propaganda) statistics being kept on the "split" between those classes--I have only anecdotal evidence from doctors themselves.

Both parties have used abortion as a polarizing wedge issue for so long that they've stifled most discussion of the "middle ground." Anything that restricts an unfettered right to abort a baby, (even a totally healthy and normal baby) right up until the moment of actual full delivery is viciously attacked by the pro-choicers. Anything that prevents a fertilized ovum from reaching term is just as viciously attacked by the pro-lifers.

"Disposable until born" vs. "Every little sperm is sacred." The lobbies claim those are the only two positions available, and any movement away from one of those poles is a crushing defeat or brilliant victory, depending on the POV. The vast majority of the public disagrees.