That was some speech in Texas the other day that lasted 11 hours ! Her speech on the floor was to do with a woman's right to choose and she made it through to the end without a vote being taken regarding cutting abortion down to 20 weeks. It shows that there are still decent US senators out there defending women from Republicans who want to control what a woman does with her body. Sadly the bill could be reintroduced by the vile Sen. Rick Parry.

11 hours isn't long by American standards. There are some legendary filibusters - especially to thwart racial reforms during the 40s and 50s.

Republicans who filibuster = bad

Democrats who do it = good

Seems to be the way it gets covered in the liberal media and vice versa in the right wing media.

Either way, it's denying democratic process whether you agree with the reasons behind it or not.

It was an extraordinary effort to prevent a bunch of reactionary forces exerting control over women's bodies.

It's more than a tad ironic that some of those who scream the loudest about the small state want to control a woman's body – and, indeed, how consenting adults have sex and with whom.

Since when has a foetus been a "woman's body"?
Is it a "woman's body" right up to birth? No, of course it isn't, otherwise we'd allow abortion right up to 39.9 weeks.
So, since when has a woman had the moral right to end a life just because the child is inside her body?

Firstly, let me say that I do support abortion but not "late" abortion.
My problem is that I don't know at what point an abortion becomes late, i.e. the cut-off point between amorphous jelly and feasible human.
Abortion before that cut-off point is termination ... after it, it is killing a human who hasn't been born yet and IMO it is no longer the woman's prerogative to decide.

Also, before we get hysterical about this, let's remember that what was being "debated" was a reduction of the age at which a foetus could be legally terminated ... i.e. 20 weeks instead of 22.

20 weeks ... that's halfway to birth.
Is that really such a crazy limit?

It depends entirely on the circumstances, I'd say. A victim of ritual abuse by a male relative who doesn't know she's pregnant until 21 weeks might think differently. Or a woman with medical complications who might be at risk of dying during childbirth. I haven't read up much on it recently, but I think the last time I did, the medical consensus was that the current limit was correct and the only reason there was talk of changing it was for religious/ideological reasons.

UK doctors say 24. How about trusting the professionals?

What was being 'debated' would have meant the closure of large numbers of facilities offering services to women. And would have been in the context of continuing attacks on Roe v Wade by reactionary social conservatives/religious fundamentalists. That 20 weeks isn't their intended end game. It's just the start. Exactly as it is here.

And I wasn't being "hysterical" – although your response pretty much edges in that direction, with some language that is not that far removed from the anti-abortion fundamentalists.

Spot on.

Setting religious beliefs aside because they never contribute sensibly to such a debate, a good starting point as to whether the "being" is a "feasible human being" or stiil a "foetus" would be to ask the question "If we removed this entity from its mothers womb would it survive on its own with no medical intervention ?"

For the sorts of time spans that they are debating the answer would almost always be "no" and the vital part of the equation is the foetus' lungs - a friend of a friend has two teenage healthy children now who were born very early (from memory around 28 weeks when that was the absolute limit for forced delivery) because it was known that she could not carry beyond that time, they both need very intensive care for months afterwards, beyond what their normal expected pregnancy length would have been and its fair, if a little cruel, to say that without that intensive care they would not have survived more than a few hours - fantastic medical achievements but for the sake of the debate then I believe that is where the line should be drawn when considering abortion - which isn't to say that early deliveries should not be given the care they need - its a complicated subject and you can probably foresee instances where one baby may be being born and rushed to intensive care while another just a few days earlier in its timespan may be terminated.

One is inclined to respect medical opinion.
But, as advances have been made in looking after premature babies, we must remember that the limit has been brought down from 28 to 24 weeks


Didn't say you were ... I said "before we get hysterical"


Give over, an anti-abortion fundamentalist would never say anything like "Firstly, let me say that I do support abortion but not "late" abortion"