With his almost 10 posts per day, it's kinda difficult not to bump into CT around here. And when it happens, it's pretty difficult to prevent him from starting a discussion of his own person.

Am I the only one who sees the irony there??

Yes of course. It's ME that does this. Not my critics, ME.

'Cause I'm such a fascinating fabulous guy. Even to ME

smadsen another of my wonderful fans

Anyone ever mentioned the really neato ignore function at this forum ?

Ask.

Maybe someone will write you a step by step guide to using it.

Correct.

I'm sure you are. I only have interest in your ego, though, when you attempt to use it as a measure of other people's egos.

No, I guess obdurateness is unavoidable but I'm certainly no fan of it.

Why would I use the ignore function, except to keep out spam and solicitation? I respond to anyone who write something I'd like to address. That's kinda the idea with "this forum".

What a lovely person you are, to want to force a rape victim (who is already traumatised enough, I might add) to carry a child against her will.

__________________
The smile when you tore me apart. You took my heart, deceived me right from the start. You showed me dreams, I wished they'd turn into real. You broke a promise and made me realize.
It was all just a lie.

Hey everyone, I apologize for more or less disappearing from this thread for the last few days; this was one killer week for me and I'm really, really, glad to finally see Saturday.

I can't say there's been much said in the last few pages that I feel the need to respond to. Thanks to PopulistAmerica for chiming in, and a belated welcome to the forum.
Looking at the poll itself, I see that "Abortion should be legal, but subject to some restriction(s)" is still the popular position, with a roughly even number of people on either side.

I'd like to impart some direction back into this conversation, and personally, I'm curious as to how the 18 voters who chose options 1, 3 or 4 would respond to legislation affirming the legality of abortion but restricting it after a certain point in development. I realize that such would not be your optimal scenario, but how strongly would you oppose it? Or would you (grudgingly?) support it, as superior to the status quo?

Just for the sake of argument, let's say the proposed cut-off point is the 26th week of development, a point at which:
These seems to represent some commonly referenced potential cut-offs: brain development, potential viability, control of body functions, etc. We can assume that exceptions would be made for the life/health of the mother.

So, the question is...
...If you support unrestricted abortion, would you see a ban (with some exceptions) after the 26th week as an acceptable, if disagreeable, compromise with people who feel differently? Or is it something you would strongly protest as going too far?

...If you support a general ban on abortion, would you support a measure that allowed abortion up to the 26th week? Or is that too compromising and you would "hold out" for a more complete ban?

...If you support abortion with restrictions, does the 26th week seem like an acceptable (if not, in your opinion, optimal) point to initiate restrictions? Or did you have another point in mind? Or are the restrictions you envisioned unrelated to fetal development?

I appreciate the number of people who have participated here thus far, and I hope we can keep this discussion both alive and meaningful a little longer.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

A ban at the 26th week is all well and good. I know some people would support a ban at this stage, and perhaps I would too, but I still feel that if this was in place, the womans rights had been removed. I don't believe it's my right to interfere, no matter what stage of pregnancy, no matter how I feel.
Having said that, I would not support a ban.

__________________
The smile when you tore me apart. You took my heart, deceived me right from the start. You showed me dreams, I wished they'd turn into real. You broke a promise and made me realize.
It was all just a lie.

To answer my own question (though I suspect my view was obvious in the asking of it):

I think initiating a general restriction on abortion after the 26th week would be an improvement over the current situation, though I suspect I could be persuaded to favor another point of development if I suitable case were made for it.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

If the procedure of aborting at that age is less risky to the life of the mother than a cesarean, I might agree with this. If both procedures carry the same risk to the mother, then I would not support this. I would support a ban after that time of gestation (based on viability outside the womb).

Twenty six weeks is plenty of time for one to make a decision about an unwanted pregnancy.
I agree at this point, too. I didn't answer as I was one who chose option #2.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

As already mentioned earlier in this thread, my position is pragmatic and based on the conflict of having two or more legal entities in one body. Legal protection of one entity simply contravenes legal protection of the other entity/entities. As a consequence of this position, only one solution exists while the union of entities remains and that's legal voidance of all but one of the entities.

When I voted abortion "without any specific restrictions", it's the result of being consistent with legal voidance of all but one entity. If at any time during the union more entities become legal persons, the conflict arises and the argument fails.

However, as I think judge Blackmun also said somewhere back in the 70'ies, there's nothing wrong with making the access to abortion less easy while still maintaining the right to choose. No matter the woman's right to choose freely, the choice to terminate a pregnancy places a burden on other parties than the woman, and especially when the risk of complications increases. Thus, whenever the risk increases, the access to abortion should be made less easy. In practice that means professional evaluation on a case to case basis, like with any other medical or surgical decision.

There is verything wrong with restricting abortion. Either ban it or allow it. Your entire viewpoint on late abortions is yet more of the "only when I approve" crap.

[quote=Si modo;1211833)
Twenty six weeks is plenty of time for one to make a decision about an unwanted pregnancy.
[/QUOTE]

What about someone who finds out too late; the girl who's too scared to talk to a doctor; the woman who assumes she's going through the menopause; the women who have to save up or jump through hoops to get an abortion? Abortion should not be restricted.

An analogy: We have regulations regarding the safety of motor vehicles here in Denmark. This means that, while you're absolutely free to choose which car to buy, if your car is found to be a safety risk it can't be driven on a public road. This doesn't mean you can't drive it on your own property and even kill yourself while doing so. It just means that it's deemed to pose a risk to your fellow citizens, - thereby becoming too much of a burden on society.

Sure, you can call it a restriction. I call it dependency and responsibility. The choice to terminate a pregnancy can be ever so free but of no one's willing to do the procedure due to the risks involved, then it automatically restricts the choice. As the saying goes, no woman is an island and, therefore, neither are her choices. No matter how free she is to choose.

What risks? Who exactly is the woman getting the abortion hurting? You clearly can't be thinking of the foetus, as you support abortion in certain circumstances.

The risk to the woman. A late term abortion often poses a greater risk to the woman's health than an early term abortion (in fact, that was the argument in my country when setting the limit as low as 12 weeks!). Now, if a professional surgeon evaluates the risk of a procedure to be high, do you protect the right of the woman to choose or do you protect the right of the surgeon to choose not to go ahead with the procedure? To me, that choice is clear.

And you're right, I'm not thinking of the fetus. If there is no risk - which could be 99.99% of all cases for all I know - then no problem, terminate the pregnancy.