This is topic The March for Women's Lives!! in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=023783

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
I've probably said I love Washington about fifty zillion times on Hatrack, but I'll say it again:

I LOVE Washington D.C.!!



Today was the March for Women's Lives, which drew almost (maybe more than?) a million people to march in support of a woman's right to choose.

Now, most of my debates/discussions about abortion have been with people on this board or with my (mostly) conservative friends here. And with all the media attention focused on the conservative Republicans who hold office, I was beginning to think I was rather alone in the world. This March proved to me, resoundingly, that I am *not* alone, and it was a great feeling -- I have never before felt so much solidarity with other women.

So anyway, regardless of whether or not you are pro-choice or pro-life, take a second to look at my pictures from the March -- if nothing else, some of the signs are pretty darn amusing.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
You have a lot of guts to make this thread on this forum. You're definitely not afraid of controversy, I'll say that much.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Storm, being afraid of controversy leads to silence and complacency, and those are the number 1 and 2 public enemies of democracy.

Oh -- and anyone who wants to watch the tail end of the March festivities can watch it live on C-SPAN -- I just saw an actress, Christine Laiti speak....wow:

quote:

---

"You may hold your own private religious beliefs, however extreme they may be, but get them out of my life, out of my body, and out of the way of my daughter's future."

---

Yes!

(Storm: How's *that* for controversy? )

[ April 25, 2004, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Oh, and the official count is in -- more than 1.1 million people marched in Washington today, a record.


 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 

quote:

---

You may hold your own private religious beliefs, however extreme they may be, but get them out of my life, out of my body, and out of the way of my daughter's future.

---

Not only do I believe that abortion is not just destroying a group of undeveloped cells, but I have reached this conclusion logically, not religiously. Not all pro-life people believe what they do because of their religion. You seemed to like what she said. You like somebody who makes blatant blanket statements like that?
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Oh, I'm all for controversy. People should definitely be free to do things that create controversy.

The problem is that when the thread isn't about a dispassionate examination of the issue, but rather is instead a finger in the face of those who hold opposing viewpoints, as I'm sure some people will view your thread, it often tends to degenerate into baiting, flaming, name calling, etc.

Of course, now that I've pointed out that possibility, people will be on their best behavior. See how sneaky I am.

Your thread brings up an issue that I've been mulling over ever since the last time I saw one of those Navy recruiting commercials. 'Conservative', for lack of a better word, causes and people are often very 'up-front' about where they stand on issues and make no bones about recruiting for their efforst. I think 'liberal' groups tend to be much less active in recruitment and proselytizing. For instance, how often have you seen a commercial for SANE or NOW or the ACLU or the EFF, let's say, all set to a rocking beat a la the military recruiting efforts.

I haven't seen any of them, and I have to wonder why that is and whether it's wise.
 

---

Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
 
I guess I don't get it. It's a march for women's lives, yet the only life they are celebrating is the one they have a right to kill.
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 
If anyone needs to buy an essay about abortion for school, there's a link at the bottom of the page.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Nick, gotta be honest, I agree 100% with her "blanket statement," so it doesn't matter to me. She's talking about the religious people who are trying to force their views on abortion on other people, she's not saying all anti-abortion activists are religious. I don't want religious people telling me I should do certain things with my body, regardless of what it is!

I'd be just as irritated at a Catholic if he tried to get me to go to confession as if he tried to get me to not have an abortion.

And Storm,

I guess me posting Christine's comment wasn't the best idea, but the original intent of this thread wasn't really "see how great pro-choice is, you should be pro-choice!" as it was something along the lines of "I had so much fun doing this! Check it out and be happy for me!"

Much more, "My dad turned 50 today, isn't it exciting" and less "Wow, the war sucks because of X, Y, and Z and I want you to argue with me."
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 

quote:

---

Nick, gotta be honest, I agree 100% with her "blanket statement," so it doesn't matter to me. She's talking about the religious people who are trying to force their views on abortion on other people, she's not saying all anti-abortion activists are religious. I don't want religious people telling me I should do certain things with my body, regardless of what it is!

---

quote:

---

And nobody is trying to tell you what to do with your body, they're trying to stop you from what they believe is murder.

---

quote:

---

Nick, that depends very much on your perspective on this issue.

---

quote:

---

Estimates range as high as 10,000 deaths a year in the united states prior to legalized abortion, from "back alley" abortion procedures.

---

But that only rationalizes abortion to those who believe it's not murder. People who do think it's murder say that those 10,000 lives are far less than the amount of babies aborted.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
I love America! Yay!

How many countries in the world can boast such gatherings? In how many are people allowed to freely state their opinions, opposed to the current regime?

Bush has acted to limit and encroach on women's rights since the very first day he took office.

Feminism is not a dirty word.

Yay for the sisters!
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Nick, that post was in response to the person who asked why "the march to save women's lives."

Well, because, legalized abortion saves adult women's lives compared to abortion being illegal.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Oh, honestly Nick. You've been around long enough, you should know me better than that.

I'm the *last* person that's going to blast *anyone* for standing up for what they think is right. I'm celebrating something *good* here, I'm not trying to be negative about what other people believe. We walked by plenty of anti-abortion demonstrators in the streets during the March, and I honestly felt strange because I felt like they assumed I hated them and in turn hated me. That kills me, because there's so much more to a person than a belief on a single issue. I'd like to think I'm one of the most moderate, accepting people you'll ever meet.

Maybe that comment was the wrong thing to post. I'd remove it, but I hate it when people do that after there's been an argument, so half the thread no longer makes sense.

Anyway.

Also, the perspective I was referring to was the way you approach the argument -- is it about abortion (murder), or choice (something entirely different)? I think it's about choice, and what that means for women and society as a whole. People who believe it is a moral argument view it much differently.

[ April 25, 2004, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

Estimates range as high as 10,000 deaths a year in the united states prior to legalized abortion, from "back alley" abortion procedures.

---

:snort:

:cough:
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
aka,

Exactly!
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Scott... how many abortions occur each year in the US?

Its a rather dangerous procedure, oftentimes, too.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

Bush has acted to limit and encroach on women's rights since the very first day he took office.

---

quote:

---

Well, because, legalized abortion saves adult women's lives compared to abortion being illegal.

---

quote:

---

Conversely, before 1973, when abortion became legal in the United States, many more women died from unsafe and unsanitary abortions. In the 1950s and '60s, at least 160 to 260 women died each year from illegal abortions. Because abortion was illegal during this time and many abortion related deaths went unreported, the mortality rate is likely to have been even higher than these numbers indicate.

---

quote:

---

Scott... how many abortions occur each year in the US?

Its a rather dangerous procedure, oftentimes, too.

---

quote:

---

Storm, being afraid of controversy leads to silence and complacency, and those are the number 1 and 2 public enemies of democracy.

---

quote:

---

And yet, that "Stand" agains the "murder" of children is killing women worldwide.

---

quote:

---

Why does the child need to die? Especially a child born here in America, where there are plenty of people willing and able to adopt an unwanted child. Where we have education and health care and wealth and culture and tolerance. . .

---

You and I can think that Scott, but most people who are pro-choice would say that the "group of undeveloped cells" is not a child, and therefore eliminating it is not murder in their eyes. They aren't killing a child, in their mind.

[ April 25, 2004, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
 

---

Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 
I wish I could be happy for you.
But I can't. Not about this.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I will never understand why people think killing a child makes a woman equivalent to men. How taking the life of the unborn somehow puts women on an equal footing.

Calling this a march for women's lives is disgusting. Call it what it is - a march to support the legalization of abortion. Quit couching it in nice words that don't apply here.

The march for women's lives would be a pro-life march.

Abortion does not protect women's lives - it takes them.

On July 25, 1981 Robin Wells had an abortion under general anesthesia at the Akron Center for Reporductive Health. After the procedure, Robin went into cardiac arrest and slipped into a coma. On August 2nd, 1981 she died at the age of 27. Ohio Certificate of Death File#061414

Debra Walton was a 35 year old woman who had a legal abortion three weeks before her death on September 25, 1989. She was admitted to UAB hospital in Birmingham Alabama on September 24th in septic shock. Alabama death certificate # 89-027305

Lynnette Wallace underwent an abortion by Dr. Morton Barke at Inglewood Hospital on September 13, 1975. He failed to diagnose her ectopic pregnancy. She died on September 27 when her right fallopian tube ruptured. She was 22 years old. State of California Certificate of Death #75-130274.

I have hundreds more, if you're interested in hearing them. Do you discuss these cases and the thousands of women who are seriously injured by abortionists when you have you little get-togethers, Kasie?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Yeah, Nick, I recognize that.

My wife and I are helping a young mother who decided to keep her child-- well, keep her child. (This is the second time we've done this) It's not easy for anyone. And I recognize the feeling of powerlessness that some single moms feel, because they feel pressed by society that in order to be a good person, they have to keep the baby-- but in order be a good person, they should not have had a baby at all.

But as for compromising, or having a logical dialogue on the subject of abortion-- I'm not sure that's possible. The two sides are coming at it from such differing points of view, I don't know that it can be settled in any way except through bitter legislation.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
I've emailed the columnists where I've seen estimates over 5000 and asked for their sources. Until then, I can't provide you with relaiable sources.
 

---

Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
Well don't that beat it all, this thread started a discussion about abortion. Did anyone see that coming?
 

---

Posted by Taberah (Member # 4014) on :
 
I think painting this issue as one of "women's rights" is like Southerners saying that the Civil War is about "State's Rights." Sure, there's an element of truth to the statement, but there's a large amount of spin-doctoring and cosmetic adjustments that are a sop to concience.

The issue is really quite simple. Either the thing that grows in a woman's uterus is a living being, or it is not. If it is in fact alive then you must admit that there is is more to the issue than just the woman's rights. Classic legal theory dictates that your rights end where another's begin, which is why I have the right to swing my fists as much as I want so long as your head is not in the way. If there's a real person with rights growing in that uterus, then the mother has responsibilities greater than her own will. But of course, all of this hinges on the initial assumption.

From a purely Constitutional standpoint, I totally disagree with Roe vs. Wade. Then again, this stems from a larger beef I have with the Supreme Court reading things into the Constitution. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY. Thus, while I might agree with the effects that stem from the Court attempting to defend my privacy, I reject their means. They have essentially become a legislative body by hideously abusing their power to infer things from the Constitution. But like I said, all of this is much larger than Roe v. Wade.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Let me try to illuminate how livid, and hurt, and outraged I am.

"The March for White Supremacy!"

I love Washington DC!

Today, I was at the Klan march, where we celebrated the inherent superiority of the white race!

NO matter how you feel on the subject, come celebrate with me the wonderful time I had!!!!

I love it when we can gather together and put the negroes in their place!! Whee!"

You realize, that you a celebrating something that a lot of people consider to be a travesty, murder, something too horrific to even contemplate, and you are celebrating it and wondering why some of us are upset?

I hate to speak for the Cards, but knowing they are religious people and knowing the beliefs most Mormons hold, I daresay your post is probably quite offensive to our hosts as well.

But hey, you want to celebrate go ahead. Forgive me if I don't jump for joy with you.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
*hijacks thread*

Taberah! We need to talk. My father is going to be in Ft. Rucker teaching a class, I wonder if you guys will cross paths?
 

---

Posted by Taberah (Member # 4014) on :
 
Shoot me an IM.

I won't be going anywhere, so I'd be happy to link up with him.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Ironically, the ad below links to this page.

[ April 25, 2004, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Will do. I'll email him too and get the details of the class he's teaching. I was hoping we could get together, because I was planning on heading down to Rucker to meet up with him, but he's going to come to Birmingham instead. Sill hope we can see each other while you're in Alabama though.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I rarely see any ads except the ones for science fiction book clubs. I don't see the one Scott linked.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Huh-- scroll down to the bottom of the page, there should be two ads there.

Wait-- am I the ONLY one who sees these things?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
It WAS there; now I see smiley ads.

[Edit: and now what Belle said. I guess they change with every post]

[ April 25, 2004, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
I have zero sympathy for the argument that legalized abortions save women from the dangers of potentially dangerous back-alley abortions. Legalized abortion has taken far more lives than it has "saved."

Personally, I hope for a day when feminism will celebrate the awesome powers of procreation, when every life (or potential life, if you wish to call it that) will be cherished, when mothers will be valued for bringing lives into the world, and when sexual responsibility will take precedence over sexual freedom.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Does anyone want to see the ladybug dress I sewed for my daughter?

I hate to say this, it's kind of scary, but I think I might be getting good at this sewing thing!

http://members.sparedollar.com/Belle0511/ldaybgdress1.JPG

Another outfit I did, this one I just custom dyed a lavender color I didn't make it.

http://members.sparedollar.com/Belle0511/Abld1.jpg
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"will be cherished, when mothers will be valued for bringing lives into the world, and when sexual responsibility will take precedence over sexual freedom."

actually, this already existed. It was what women generally were trying to fight for freedom FROM during the 19th and 20th centuries.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
In some cases, yes. However, I think in many cases women were not valued, but confined and oppressed, for their ability to bear children. And it was not sexual responsibility, but sexual obedience that was called for.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
None of which necessarily calls for the murder of children to remedy.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
First, it is not agreed that they are murder. Second, I was disupting that women had those values before, and that the sexual revolution somehow undermined them.
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
I hope we can agree that this is a fact:

All women trying to get pregnant who miscarry grieve when it happens. Correct?

What if a girl of 17 years of age gets pregnant and has a abortion without a second look back. She meets the right man and she gets in a stable marriage at 25, tries to get pregnant to have a child with her husband, and has a miscarriage. She would no doubt grieve, right? Then why would she grieve for the loss of the unborn child later, during marriage, when she didn't have a problem whatsoever with doing the same thing 8 years beforehand?

Why do some women (namely pro-choice supporters)act sympathetic for women who lose their babies before birth and yet support abortion?
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Its all in that phrase you used, pro-choice.

Reproductive choice, in other words. The ability to choose when to bear children.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Most women already have that, via the two phrases 'Yes' and 'No.'
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 

quote:

---

Reproductive choice, in other words. The ability to choose when to bear children.

---

And hooray for birth control for making that possible.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
The very first day in office, Bush signed an executive order yanking funding from programs teaching women's health information worldwide. Why? Because they refuse to be gagged and required not to mention abortion under any circumstances. Scientists, health professionals, and educators are understandably reluctant to be told they can only tell their clients part of the truth. We desperately need these programs for a number of reasons. Yet he did that. I feel he is an enemy of women's rights.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
And some taxpayers are understandably reluctant to pay for the expansion of abortion beyond its current borders.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Would it be better if people didn't have sex until they are ready to have children? Possibly. I'm not convinced that sex outside of those circumstances is a "bad thing."

For practical purposes, did birth control, such as condoms, make it possible for women in particular to choose when to have children?

Yup, sure did.

Yes and no are all well and good, but historically, pretty crummy at results.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
*loves Scott and Jon Boy*
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I would love to see stats on how many people think it's appropriate for tax dollars to pay for abortion services.

I think even a lot of pro-choicers think it's wrong.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that I need the availability of a surgical procedure to make me equal to a man.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
In none of the programs Bush suspended funding for did tax dollars go to abortion. The programs spent monies acquired through donations on teaching about abortion, all tax dollars went to contraceptive information.

Clearly Bush was helping make abortions unnecessary by cutting off information about contraceptives.

[ April 25, 2004, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 
*loves fugu and ak*
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Belle-
I can't help you with that particular question mark very well, but its not just legal abortion, its the entire idea that women can have sex and walk away from the man at some point following the sex, which only happened with the availability of birth control.

Now, as far as I know, you think sex outside of marriage is immoral, which is fine... but if you think inside that box, you won't see a problem. If you try to think outside it, you should be able to realize the dramatic differences, not only in sexual options, but in what those sexual options meant. Only part of it was the attitude that men and women shouldn't be employed in the same location, which is a perfectly logical and rational, and probably moral, thing to do in the circumstance where pregnancy can't be prevented.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Pregnancy is always preventable.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Well, historically, that seems to be a false statement.

Look, we can argue the morality of sex before marriage all we want, and we're not going to agree, because I don't see any compelling evidence that it ISN"T moral. I've chosen to wait, because that works best for me. Does it work best for everyone? No, no it does not.

If you want to argue that people shouldn't have sex outside of marriage, thats fine with me, but it has no practical value, because that argument has been around, and failing, for 2000 years. So, what say we find BETTER ways of preventing pregnancy that don't involve teh subjugation of women, what?
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
And before anyone can say, "Well, what about rape?" I'll just go ahead and say that that's an exception.

quote:

---

Well, historically, that seems to be a false statement.

---

quote:

---

Look, we can argue the morality of sex before marriage all we want . . .

---

quote:

---

So, what say we find BETTER ways of preventing pregnancy that don't involve teh subjugation of women, what?

---

quote:

---

In none of the programs Bush suspended funding for did tax dollars go to abortion. The programs spent monies acquired through donations on teaching about abortion, all tax dollars went to contraceptive information.

Clearly Bush was helping make abortions unnecessary by cutting off information about contraceptives.

---

quote:

---

You did.

---

quote:

---

The argument that "all pregnancy is preventable" is predicated on people not having sex outside of circumstances where they want to be pregnant, otherwise the argument has no logical backing and fails before it gets off the ground.

---

quote:

---

I tend to think history is a fairly reasonable guide to how people will act. Since, historically, pregnancy has NOT been preventable by the means advocated by your argument, I suggest that humans are not capable of preventing all unwanted pregnancies within the guidelines of "all pregnancy is preventable"

---

And historically, birth control wasn't widely available. Thus, history is not always a reliable guide for present actions.

[ April 25, 2004, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Exactly, ak.
If we can make birth control 100% effective, there is no reason for abortion. Win win situation! People can have sex if they choose, and no abortions need to be performed, meaning no murder in the eyes of those believing embryo's to be people.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
I know of no one who thinks that abortion is a good thing. All the pro-choice people I’ve heard speak say that they acknowledge that abortion is a very terrible procedure, they just don’t feel it should be legalized. So I don’t think we have to establish common ground on abortion being a very bad thing, which is normally where these discussions end up going. What we have to do is draw a line.

We have to figure out when we are willing to stop those things we know to be damaging society. We have to figure out when we are willing to step and tell someone that we think that they are making the wrong choice and we will not let them ruin their life, and possible other’s.

I know exactly where my line is drawn when it comes to abortion. I’m ambiguous when it comes to the legality of abortion, though I think that anything after around first trimester shouldn’t be that hard to show makes legal sense, but regardless of the legal situation, to me, every time someone gets an abortion, someone else dies, and I would break the law to save someone’s life. That means every time I vote on an abortion issue, despite the legal question, I would vote to stop abortions.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Jon Boy
I strongly suggest that you go back and reread my post.

It talks about BIRTH CONTROL. You've been arguing at me like I'm advocating abortion as birth control. I'm not.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Okay, Paul. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I really do agree that the best solution would be effective birth control and good education. I can accept that people are going to have sex outside of marriage. And since I really don't think that anybody wants to see abortions continue, I think the best solution is to prevent the pregnancies that would have ended in abortion. In my opinion, the pro-choice people are putting their emphasis in the wrong place.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
It's not fair to say that birth control should be used, and that this will remove the need for abortion. Aside from abstinence, there is no fool-proof method of birth control. (Well, there probably are some non-reversible methods, but you get my point...)

So it's pointless to point to the woman and say that she shouldn't get pregnant. Accidents happen. They happen to everybody. Accidental pregnancies will exist as long as people keep having sex.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
*Whole heartidly agrees with Jon Boy*

Education is key, I agree that much more money should be put into this, people should make informed choices about when they're having sex and what they'll do to prevent pregnancy, as well as what to do if it occurs.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I agree with Jon Boy that people should be educated about birth control. But it cannot be a complete solution, because birth control can never be 100% effective.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 

quote:

---

So it's pointless to point to the woman and say that she shouldn't get pregnant. Accidents happen. They happen to everybody. Accidental pregnancies will exist as long as people keep having sex.

---

I'm not trying to say that it's the woman's fault or responsibility. If that's what it sounded like, I apologize. That's not what I meant. What I mean is that if a couple is in a situation where they don't want a pregnancy, there are a couple of reasonable options: (1) use birth control, cross your fingers, and be prepared for an unexpected pregnancy; or (2) if you absolutely cannot accept the possibility of a pregnancy, don't have sex. Yeah, #2 is a crappy option for most people, but it's less expensive, it won't possibly endanger your life, and it won't cause the emotional damage that an abortion could cause.

[ April 25, 2004, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I quite agree birth control education is necessary. Which is why I consider it so awful Bush cut all that funding for birth conttrol education.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Jon Boy, it didn't sound like you were saying that. At least not to me. But it was an extrapolation of what you were saying that I wanted to hedge up. I pretty much agree with you.
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
Thank Anne Kate. I don't agree with Bush in this instance, that's for sure. Why would he think cutting educational funding would limit accidental pregnancies?
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 
Hypothetically, let's say government tax dollars went to fund Syrian students attending college. College is good, right? They get an education and have the ability to better themselves, both principals of our capitalistic democracy.

Now lets say all the students were being taught to hate Westerners and that blowing themselves up to kill us was a good thing. Let's say that upon reaching office, Bush pulled funding to this program.

Now, you could argue that was really mean of Bush. He's denying those children a chance to attain an education. Education is a good thing, right? To about half the country, these two scenerios are identical. Education is nice, but education that advocates the death of the helpless is just plain evil.
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
How exactly does educating people about birth control cause death of children. I was very well educated about all kinds of birth control in high school, and I'm not pro-choice. And your analogy doesn't work. The people who learn about birth control and sex are not being indoctrinated to hate anything. They made their choice about what they believe, and I don't see how the education could have caused them to be pro-choice.
Save the "Bush is never in the wrong" routine for somebody who believes it.
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 
I have never said "Bush is never wrong". I disagree with him on a great many subjects. I can see teaching abortion if we're very careful about it. Personally, I would prefer the money be awarded on a case-by-case basis based on content.

Teaching 'abortion is ok if the baby doesn't happen to be conveinient' is teaching murder. Teaching the procedure exists is not. Discussing the uses and implications in a culturally and religiously sensitive manner doesn't bother me. Saying "And if the pills fail you can always abort" does.
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 
Where did you get that they're saying that?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
As none of the tax dollars Bush cut went to teaching about abortion, its sort of a moot point.

He only cut birth control dollars.
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 

quote:

---

Teaching 'abortion is ok if the baby doesn't happen to be conveinient' is teaching murder. Teaching the procedure exists is not.

---

quote:

---

That, and did anyone else find it mildly amusing that they were having this "march" underneath a giant phallus?

---

I thought that's what drew them together.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Kasie I'm glad you enjoyed your march!

AJ
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I hate you all.

Damn smurfs.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
"Is a woman's desire not to be inconvenienced by a pregnancy she did not prevent worth more than the life of the baby she's carrying?"

It all comes down to recognizing that every act has a consequence and whether people are willing to accept the consequences of their actions.

Having said that, I think our current system is not doing a good job of holding fathers responsible for unwanted pregnancies. I can see (and somewhat agree with) the feminist argument from that angle. If women are always stuck with the chore of raising an unwanted child, of course that is a violation of women's rights.
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
"THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY."

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people


" Let me try to illuminate how livid, and hurt, and outraged I am.
'Today, I was at the Klan march, where we celebrated the inherent superiority of the white race!' "

You have bragged about going on a family vacation to the 1915 birthplace of the modern Klu Klux Klan, Stone Mountain, bought in 1958 to be completed for the same reason as the Confederate battleflag was placed on the Georgia state flag in 1956: to show the state government's opposition to desegregation.

"You realize, that you a celebrating something that a lot of people consider to be a travesty, murder, something too horrific to even contemplate, and you are celebrating it and wondering why some of us are upset?"

You were the one who advocated murder of innocents: cutting off humanitarian food shipments to people who were being starved to death in a longterm famine (in many ways, induced) worsened by the Taleban to consolidate their political hold on Afghanistan.

"I hate to speak for the Cards..."

Simple solution: don't.

[ April 26, 2004, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Beren,

I think it goes a bit deeper than that (your last post).

Fallow
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Thanks, Banna

Some of you are going to hate me for saying this, and I know some of you are livid that I had a great time at this March (I'm sorry, Belle )....but I'm going to be honest, I just don't care.

I always used to get worked up and angry when people had these discussions on Hatrack. I felt they were attacking me personally, and since Hatrack is so overwhelmingly pro-life, I felt really alone. Part of me posting these pictures was defiance -- say what you want.

I am pro-choice. I am proud to be pro-choice. And there are millions of other women just like me. YES!

So say what you want. Believe what you want. It doesn't hurt me, bother me, or even irritate me. I'm not going to change you, and you're not going to change me.

I'm happy you have found strength of convinction. Because I have finally found mine.

So there.

[ April 26, 2004, 07:12 AM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
[quote]Having said that, I think our current system is not doing a good job of holding fathers responsible for unwanted pregnancies. I can see (and somewhat agree with) the feminist argument from that angle. If women are always stuck with the chore of raising an unwanted child, of course that is a violation of women's rights.
[\quote]

If I get a girl pregnant, I have no choice in whether or not she carries the baby to term. I can only hope she values the life of the innocent as much as I do.

After the child is born, if we are not married, I have no practical rights to have custody of the child. If I pick him up from school and take him home, for example, it is conceivable that I could be prosecuted for parental kidnapping. If we do marry, then divorce, the possibility of me getting custody of my child are virtually nil, no matter how fit a parent I am.

Inequality? Oh, yeah.

Deadbeat dads should be made to pay-- but good fathers are not allowed to be good fathers for the simple fact that they lack the boobies.

:pet peeve:
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 
Scott, the part that really bothers me is the father gets no say in whether his own child lives. If the woman chooses to abort, she can and he can not stop her. If she chooses to keep the baby, he gets hit with child support even if he would have prefered the abortion.

Which I guess just goes to show how important it is we all pick our sexual partners wisely. A romp in the hay may be fun, but it has serious consequences. A man just gets fewer choices after the fact.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 

quote:

---

If I get a girl pregnant, I have no choice in whether or not she carries the baby to term. I can only hope she values the life of the innocent as much as I do.

---

code:

---

PHYSICAL CUSTODY OUTCOME WHEN PARENTS' REQUESTS CONFLICT:

Mother's Request:        Mother       Mother          Joint
Father's Request:        Joint        Father          Father
-------------------------------------------------------
Who got Custody:

Mother                  68.6%           46.2%            0.0%
Joint                   25.8%           36.5%           42.9%
Father                   2.4%            9.6%           42.9%
Split                    3.2%            7.7%           14.2%


PHYSICAL CUSTODY OUTCOME WHEN PARENTS' REQUESTS DO NOT CONFLICT:

Mother's Request:   Mother       Joint           Father
Father's Request:   Mother       Joint           Father
-------------------------------------------------------
Who got Custody:

Mother               89.4%         30.7%           12.3%
Joint                 6.5%         54.0%            6.1%
Father                2.8%          8.0%           75.5%
Split                 1.3%          7.3%            6.1%

Comment: Note that even when BOTH the mother and the father
requested sole paternal custody, sole maternal custody was
awarded in 12% of the cases.

---

quote:

---

"The decrees overwhelmingly favored the mother's custody wishes: 67% of mothers obtained both the legal and residential custody arrangements they desired compared with only 15% of fathers; meanwhile, only 8% of mothers (vs 37% of fathers) found neither stipulation to correspond to their preference."

---

 

---

Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
Kasie, I'm glad you had a good time. We saw part of it on TV yesterday, when they were interviewing Howard Dean. Yay!

I agree with others here that it's insane that the same people who rant and rave about teaching kids about contraceptives in public schools are also shrilly accusing these women of being casual murderers, simply because they find pregnancies inconvenient. Excuse me? Maybe in the microscopic little bubble you live in, no one ever ever has sex before they are 100% ready to have a child and spend the rest of their lives with the other parent.

But that ain't the real world. No matter how much you stick your fingers in your ears and scream for abstinence above all else, people out there are going to have sex before they're ready to deal with all of the possible consequences.

So you CANNOT have it both ways. If you're going to refuse to educate kids ad nauseam about sex and birth control, then you damn well better be willing to give them a last-resort way of dealing with this without killing themselves with coathangers. If you see that final option as murder, then you damn well better make sure that EVERYONE is so well-versed in Sex Ed and contraceptives that abortion is never seen as an option.

[ April 26, 2004, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 

quote:

---

I tend to think history is a fairly reasonable guide to how people will act. Since, historically, pregnancy has NOT been preventable by the means advocated by your argument, I suggest that humans are not capable of preventing all unwanted pregnancies within the guidelines of "all pregnancy is preventable"

---

quote:

---

I am pro-choice. I am proud to be pro-choice. And there are millions of other women just like me. YES!

So say what you want. Believe what you want. It doesn't hurt me, bother me, or even irritate me. I'm not going to change you, and you're not going to change me.

I'm happy you have found strength of convinction. Because I have finally found mine.

---

quote:

---

I agree with others here that it's insane that the same people who rant and rave about teaching kids about contraceptives in public schools are also shrilly accusing these women of being casual murderers, simply because they find pregnancies inconvenient.

---

quote:

---

But that ain't the real world. No matter how much you stick your fingers in your ears and scream for abstinence above all else, people out there are going to have sex before they're ready to deal with all of the possible consequences.

---

quote:

---

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . .

---

quote:

---

Also, the perspective I was referring to was the way you approach the argument -- is it about abortion (murder), or choice (something entirely different)? I think it's about choice, and what that means for women and society as a whole. People who believe it is a moral argument view it much differently.

---

quote:

---

And hooray for birth control for making that possible.

---

Sorry, Ruth, but:



That's the best, funniest, and most succinct thing I've read all day.

------

Oh yeah, and:

quote:

---

You have bragged about going on a family vacation to the 1915 birthplace of the modern Klu Klux Klan, Stone Mountain, bought in 1958 to be completed for the same reason as the Confederate battleflag was placed on the Georgia state flag in 1956: to show the state government's opposition to desegregation.

---

quote:

---

In the long run, the status of women is far more important and will impact the lives of our children much, much more.

---

quote:

---

Until we've reached equality, whether or not the fetus is a person or not is irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

I won't make a difference by convincing people like Belle to believe what I believe. I'll make a difference by making sure people who hold my same beliefs go vote.

---

But you've tried to make a difference by discussing issues with others, frequently.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Gee, Kasie, if you're concerned about women and men having equitable rights, maybe you should be "Marching for Men's Uteruses".

Or maybe you should give the MAN the right to choose whether HIS child dies.

Since you seem to think that equality is more important than anything else....

Seems like this is really about the "woman's-right-to-do-whatever-the-heck-she-wants-without-
bothering-to-figure-out-how-it-affects-others".

[ April 26, 2004, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Rakeesh,

On the war, you're probably right. I guess my issue with that goes more into whether or not we should be responsible for the things happening in other parts of the world, and go fix them (this is *such* a gray area, and I have *no* idea how I feel about it, as of yet), and what is best for the United States.

And my most recent post about the war...it was mostly an emotional reaction to a very graphic photograph. I wasn't entirely logical, and I apologize.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I don't think I'm (or anyone is) owed an apology, Kasie. The pic upset you-it upsets anyone with a conscience who sees it.

I can certainly understand opposition to the war on those grounds. I was just pointing out that you're using a virtually identical justification for being pro-choice that many people use for the war in Iraq.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Rakeesh, (one more time!)

Honestly....yeah, I've probably tried to convince others here to believe what I believe. But most of my discussions on Hatrack result in *my* changing. I enjoy Hatrack because it gives me a new perspective, it helps me flesh out my own ideas and beliefs, and acheive some clarity in my own thought. I happen to have finally *found* clarity on this particular issue.

But you also have to recognize that what I said about changing someone vs. getting someone to go vote is applicable in various degrees to various issues. On abortion, people are very, very intractable, to the point where I feel trying to change peoples' minds is next to impossible. On other issues, this isn't always the case, and I might see merit in trying to change minds.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
On the contrary, on issues people-myself included-deem others intractable, I've changed my mind numerous times-in both directions, more than once.

Abortion, capital punishment, gun control, foreign aid, affirmative action...

Of course, I'm a wishy-washy doofus, so take my mindset for what it's worth
 

---

Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 
Kasie, I am glad that you got to go on the March for Women's Lives, and enjoyed it. Wish I could have gone too.

Just for the record, you are not the only pro-choice person on Hatrack. I am pro-choice and have been for years. I am old enough to remember when women died as a result of illegal abortions, and have no desire to go back to those days.

ak, I agree with everything you have posted here.
Ayelar, I agree with your post on this page, as well.

**Ela**
 

---

Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
 
What Ela said.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Just for the record, I'm against ALL abortion, legal or otherwise.

My way would save the MOST women's lives.

Think about it...if a woman knew she would be charged with murder for having an abortion, there wouldn't be as many of them doing it.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Yes, well, there would still be numerous back-alley abortions that kill both.

And that does not at all address the problems of not holding sperm-donating men accountable.

Or addressing the economic and educational and social problems of raising children in poverty, single-parent households, without enough guidance.

Not to mention the question of whether or not all abortion is murder.

I don't like abortion. But I don't want it criminalized.
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 

quote:

---

Until we've reached equality, whether or not the fetus is a person or not is irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

Until we've reached equality, whether or not the fetus is a person or not is irrelevant, because if the woman having the baby isn't treated like a "person" by society then there are far bigger problems.

---

quote:

---

Yes, well, there would still be numerous back-alley abortions that kill both.

---

quote:

---

I was including back-alley abortions in my statement. Stop as much abortion as possible, and enforce it even as far as the "back-alley" abortions. Stop them ALL.

---

quote:

---

Or do you think that the woman might as well kill herself if she kills her fetus?

---

quote:

---

What to do with >3,000,000+ unwanted children, then?

---

So killing them is the only thing? What kind of argument is that?
 

---

Posted by 20X6 (Member # 6447) on :
 
HERE HERE, Nick
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
It's not an argument. It's a question. My stance on abortion has already been made-I despise it. I think no one should want to do it at all, especially in second and third term trimesters. I support universal-and I do mean universal, there should be vending machines in school, I say-birth control options that are understood, thus preventing abortions entirely.

Because I think that some abortion IS murder, and I don't know where to draw the line on what abortion ISN'T murder, so I want the world not to have to draw the line at all.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

PSI we can't elimnate any other kind of crime so what makes you think we would be so succesful with abortions? (If they were made illegal) We weren't sucessful in getting rid of them before it was legalized either. And illegal abortions would be far more dangerous. Or do you think that the woman might as well kill herself if she kills her fetus?

---

quote:

---

but rather in your belief that women should be free to kill their babies at any point before the head pops out?

---

Could we dispense with the inflammatory rhetoric, please? It's unnecessary. If you believe abortion kills babies, then okay, I found solidarity/whatever in that. Feel free to disagree.

Second of all, I never said it was synonymous with feminism. Maybe you're confusing the two. I do think that the right to choose is essential to women's rights in general, so maybe you're making the connection there.

But hey, then again, I see no shame in taking pride in being pro-choice, like I said before. Feel free to attack some more.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
I'd like to add that I've always felt solidarity in feminism or the shared history of struggle or whatever. And hey, the March reinforced that too. But it was specifically pro-choice. So what's wrong with finding solidarity with people who believe as I do on this issue?
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
I fully support the right of every woman to choose whether or not to engage in any activity that carries any possibility of causing a pregnancy. Isn't choice great?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"So what's wrong with finding solidarity with people who believe as I do on this issue?"

Nothing. Except, as above, it's a shame that you feel so passionately about the right to kill babies.

Let's face it: that isn't inflammatory rhetoric. It's a statement of fact.

The only thing that separates a late-term fetus from a baby is its physical location. As long as it's in the womb, "millions" of women feel so passionately about the need to kill the poor thing that they'll wear a lot of pink, put stickers on their nipples, and draw up posters with really obvious puns involving the president's name in order to convince each other that there's nothing wrong with killing babies at all, provided they're still tucked safely up inside the womb.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Yep. I did all that, I support all that.

Happy?
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
lawguy,

What a coincidence, so do I!

In fact, I think we should put condoms in schools to help people be able to make safer choices.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
See, here's your problem:

You're looking for support on this forum for an opinion that is, by and large, not in the majority here. You won't find it, at least not in sizable numbers.

And yet you keep trying.

Why not tell yourself that it's not your JOB to make me happy, and that you're perfectly okay with killing babies -- whether I'm okay with it or not? You don't need to convince me that it's a good thing, and indeed will probably never be able to do so.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Um, Tom, have you *read* the rest of my comments on this thread??

I'm NOT trying to convince you. Honest.


 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Kasie H:"In fact, I think we should put condoms in schools to help people be able to make safer choices."

What does that have to do with my statement (which you were supposedly agreeing with)? I never said anything about "safe" choices.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
...and didn't I just say I'm perfectly okay with abortion and all that it entails?

Or are you just trying to get me to say "I am okay with killing babies."?

Well, okay then. You believe abortion is killing babies. Therefore, by your defintion, I support killing babies.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Kasie, can I ask you something?

At what point do you believe a fetus becomes a baby? Why, at that point, do you believe that it becomes illegal to kill it?

Moreover, do you believe it is immoral to murder? If yes, at what age does it become illegal to murder someone, and why?

Basically, I'm interested in why you DON'T think a third-trimester fetus is a baby.

------

I'll admit to having another motive to asking this question, by the way. Christy's due in two months, and I actually held my daughter's foot through my wife's stomach last night. It was simultaneously weird/squicky and magical, especially since I could quite clearly feel her reacting to my touch and my voice. If she's not a baby by this point, I don't know what she is, exactly.

[ April 26, 2004, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I was under the impression that it wasn't legal to have an abortion in the third trimester.

In fact, I thought the whole sticky partial-birth abortion thing was in the second trimester.

What's the law, exactly?

*honestly confused/doesn't know*
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Just to add my two cents...
I'm all for abortion up to the third trimester.
By that point, imo, the fetus is too much like a baby.

The ancients had no problem with abortion...up till the "quickening" that is. The quickening is when the fetus first starts to move and they figured that is when the soul first entered. So until the soul entered it was just fine to root it out.

My thinking is similar. When does the fetus become sentient? I say that the fetus is just a blob of cells and a potential Human up till about halfway through the pregnacy.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Kasie I believe partial birth abortion did include abortions in the third trimester. The reason why they crushed the skull was so that the baby was dead before they pulled it to it couldn't take a breath and be "alive"

Personally, at the moment, I'm ok with first trimester abortions but second trimester starts to get a little iffy for me.

AJ
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Teleperion, the "quickening" was what the mother *felt*. The baby starts moving very early on, much earlier than the mother can feel.

Currently there are no restrictions on abortion. The federal law against "partial birth" abortion is currently in abeyance pending resolutions on legal challenge for its constitutionality. The argument is that it has no medical definition, and thus could be binding far beyond its intent, as I understand it.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Stargate,

The women's rights issue is that men can choose to have sex with no consequences, whereas women cannot.

Abortion allows women the same choices as men. (Or at least, choices that are as equitable as we can make them.)
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
jeniwren,

...interesting. I was always under the impression that abortion was restricted past second trimester.

I'll have to consider that.

As for the ban on partial-birth abortion, I *do* take issue with the fact that it (to my knowledge) has no provisions for the health and safety of the mother.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Kasie H:"Abortion allows women the same choices as men."

What????
????????
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Uh....well.

A man is always able to have sex and not have a baby.

Abortion allows a woman to be able to have sex and not have a baby.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Accidents happen, Stargate.

I'm not about to give up my rights by accident.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
A man knows, just as a woman does, that if he has sex a pregnancy may result. He may decide to do it anyway, and he may decide to take steps to try to reduce the chances of pregnancy, but he know the chance exists. If a pregnancy does result, he cannot escape the fact that he is a potential father, and if the baby is born, he cannot escape the fact that he is a father. We have built up a whole system of laws to prevent him from shirking the responsibilites that come with that.

As much as some men might like to believe in consequence-free sex, it does not truly exist. Why would women aspire to be like the jerk men who think this way?
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
We don't all want consequence-free sex.

We just want the option, same as men. We want the right to choose.
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm not about to give up my rights by accident.

---

quote:

---

A man is always able to have sex and not have a baby.

Abortion allows a woman to be able to have sex and not have a baby.

---

quote:

---

The women's rights issue is that men can choose to have sex with no consequences, whereas women cannot.

Abortion allows women the same choices as men. (Or at least, choices that are as equitable as we can make them.)

---

You want to give women the ability to be just as irresponsible as some men. Glad we got that all figured out.

Are you willing to let a child's father refuse to pay child support on the same grounds?

We MUST be equal...

[ April 26, 2004, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
PSI, I was under the impression that having the man pay child support does at least attempt to provide equality. If the father pays child support, then the mother has custody, which implies she provides food, shelter, etc, etc...


 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Kasie, for a long time, while I was still pro-choice, I thought there were restrictions on abortion also. That there were limits. But there aren't any. None. That's what Roe v. Wade did. By saying that illegalizing abortion is unconstitutional, they didn't just say that abortion is okay early in a pregnancy, they said that we have a consitutional right to abortion. Period. No restrictions.

As I understand it, the problem with the recently passed partial birth abortion law is that "partion birth abortion" is not a medical term. Since it's not a medical term, it could describe just about anything, which would put doctors who thought they were doing something legal at risk. The other issue with the law is that (as you pointed out) there are no provisions for exceptions to the rule.

I think it's unfortunate that the two sides of this are so polarized. The NARAL and Planned Parenthood crowd lobby to keep no restrictions, and honestly, I have to think it's more about money than out of concern for women. Rather than cleaning up their act, by making abortion as clearly laid out as possible (I believe they obfuscate the issue a great deal to distressed women in the hopes that they may perform more abortions), and by agreeing that partial birth abortion as we understand it is a reprehensible, barbaric procedure that should be illegal, they fearmonger women into believing that their reproductive rights are at threat. No such thing is true. It's unlikely that the much contested partial birth abortion ban will stand up to scrutiny in the courts, and it took *years* and a Pro-Life president to get it passed in the first place.

On the other side of it, there are pro-lifers who think there should be *no* legal access to abortion, under any circumstances. But I think, like Planned Parenthood, they are the fringe element. Personally, I am staunchly pro-life, but am willing to acknowledge that until a baby has measurable brainwaves, it's hard to prove beyond a doubt that the child is a child. I believe it's murder, but am willing to acknowledge that I can't *prove* it, and so allow that abortion prior to measurable brainwave activity should be legal. That's 40 days, post-conception. OTOH, I also believe that if women are pro-choice, they need to also allow men to be pro-choice too. It took two to make the baby, even if she gets to do the carrying. Men should have the right to choose if a woman aborts his baby.

Last of all...honestly, I don't understand the purpose of the rally. You have what you want. By the tone of your posts, it sounds like you have *more* than what you want, even.
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Kasie, what PSI is getting at is that men have *no* choice in the face of women's right to choose. They don't get to choose if she has an abortion..they don't get to choose if she has the baby. And if she does choose to have the baby, they have no right to choose to not pay child support.

The only choice they get is to have sex or not. Which you've made clear isn't much of a choice.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I was under the impression that having the man pay child support does at least attempt to provide equality."

So, under what circumstances would you let men have sex without any child-bearing consequences? Because that's what you're saying women need, in order to be "equal" -- but it sounds like men don't have that, anyway.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Jeniwren:"That's what Roe v. Wade did. By saying that illegalizing abortion is unconstitutional, they didn't just say that abortion is okay early in a pregnancy, they said that we have a consitutional right to abortion. Period. No restrictions."

No. That's not at all what Roe v Wade said. It's not the current state of the law, either.

Roe v Wade broke up a pregnancy into three periods. During the first, the State may not restrict access to abortion. During the second, the State may impose some restrictions, but may not ban abortion entirely. During the third, which begins roughly at the time the fetus is "viable," the State may regulate much more heavily. The reasons are complex, and the details have changed somewhat since Roe v Wade (for instance, the three periods originally lined up with the three trimesters, but no more).
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 
To expand on what UofUlawguy said, 40 states and D.C. outlaw elective abortions after viability.
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 

quote:

---

The women's rights issue is that men can choose to have sex with no consequences, whereas women cannot.

---

I am truly shocked. The only difference between a man and a woman in an unplanned pregnancy is that the woman carries the child. That's a big deal, yes. The man is still required to pay child support and other such things. Yes, the woman sacrifices more during the pregnancy, but that's not the governments fault. That's not men's fault, and nobody is depriving you of a "right". That's simple biology, so you can do all your little marches you want, and it won't change that.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
jeniwren/PSI,

Oh! *gets it now* Thank you

Good question...*ponders*

If Hatrack's good for anything, it's making you think, neh?
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Kasie, you have to know that I support equality for men and women in almost every sense. (I can't think of an exception, but I'm leaving myself open for one.) But it isn't the government's job to make up for the fact that people are BORN unequal sometimes.

We can't fix the fact the women have uteruses and men do not. The best way to even things up is NOT to let women have abortions, it's to make the fathers pony up their half of the dough and time, or whatever is most fair and possible.

Oops, always late, I am.

[ April 26, 2004, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I don't know if those situations really exist, Stargate. I'm under the impression that if a man can prove he's the father, then he can get father's rights.

I say this because my cousin had to have her son's father sign a ton of papers saying he DIDN'T want father's rights. She bribed him because when men give up their father's rights, they no longer have to pay child support.

Am I wrong, UofU?
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
That's a good point. Why doesn't the man have a say? I never understood that. He should have at least some say on what happens.

Maybe I should go on a march in DC about that one.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
PSI:"when men give up their father's rights, they no longer have to pay child support. Am I wrong, UofU?"

Well, a guy can't get out of child support just by saying he gives up his parental rights. That would be exactly what tons of men who find themselves paying child support would want.

But there are situations where such an arrangement can be negotiated. I say negotiated because I think (don't quote me) that the mother has to give her okay, as does the judge.
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 
Unlike feminists, right, Stargate?
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 

quote:

---

The only difference between a man and a woman in an unplanned pregnancy is that the woman carries the child. That's a big deal, yes. The man is still required to pay child support and other such things. Yes, the woman sacrifices more during the pregnancy, but that's not the governments fault. That's not men's fault, and nobody is depriving you of a "right". That's simple biology, so you can do all your little marches you want, and it won't change that.

---

quote:

---

But there are situations where such an arrangement can be negotiated. I say negotiated because I think (don't quote me) that the mother has to give her okay, as does the judge.

---

quote:

---

Why doesn't the man have any say on whether the baby gets aborted? That was my question.

---

Because it's not his body.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
No, it's just his child.
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
But what about his baby?
EDIT: Dang, now I'm the one that's too slow.

[ April 26, 2004, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
It takes two people to make a baby but sometimes only one is left to raise the child.

To follow your analogy, if the truck driver was saddled with the responsibility of caring for that cargo for the rest of her life, while the other co-owner of the cargo can walk away with little or no responsibility, you can see why she feels she is justified in dumping that cargo.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
And that's why more effort needs to be expended on enforcing the father's role financially, etc.

Dumping the cargo would be a loss for EVERYONE.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Besides, why not pass the cargo on to someone who wants it?
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Well, sex IS a lot of fun...I don't see how they could turn THAT down...
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
PSI, I agree. Except financial responsibility is not enough. There is an "opportunity cost" associated with pregnancy and motherhood that also must be addressed.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Except that the consequences are unequal for men and women. Until they are equal, I don't think men have too much of a right to cry foul.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Beren, can you explain the opportunity cost? Sorry if I am dense.

Stargate, you know I'm playing Devil's advocate, right? I am pro-life.

[ April 26, 2004, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
A woman's husband does not even have the right to be notified of his wife's abortion - ever. Even if they're still toegether and he's the one providing all financial support. And a husband in most states cannot deny the paternity of a child born to his wife unless he was "abroad" when the child was conceived. Yes, that means a husband with DNA proof he's not the father can be stuck with child support, even if they divorce before the baby is born.

So please don't pretend that financial aspects are at all related to the abortion right. The Supreme Court has refused to recognize them as part of the right.

Further, some courts have given men the right to demand the destruction of embryos created via in vitro procedures, based on the father's right to "not reproduce." Yet a father has no say over whether a more advanced child of his is aborted (in either direction). Which means a father having sex risks 18 years of financial support with less say over it than the mother.

It's not about equality.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 

quote:

---

Until they are equal, I don't think men have too much of a right to cry foul.

---

I agree with that, but that doesn't mean he gets NO say does it?

[ April 26, 2004, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
That's it. No one else is having sex in this country. Ever.
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 

quote:

---

Yes, that means a husband with DNA proof he's not the father can be stuck with child support, even if they divorce before the baby is born.

---

That's really depressing. I'm so glad I've found someone who would never do something like that.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
o_O

Oh, nevermind, I totally misunderstood that.

[ April 26, 2004, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
By opportunity cost I mean the amount of woman's resources consumed for having and raising the baby. Consider the following:

1. Nine month pregnancy: Very often this takes place when the woman is still in school or in the early stages of her career. These are critical stages of her life. I've seen coworkers who left work to have babies and return to the office only to find that she is one year behind her peers.

2. Ongoing obligations: Other than the financial burden, there is also the daily grind of taking care of a child. Yes, children are little bundles of miracles. But that does not change the fact that the primary caregiver for the child have to invest enormous amounts of time and energy on the child at the expense of other dreams or goals.

3. Other relationships: It is just harder to start new relationships when you have a child.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
(((Beren)))
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
Yes, but none of those justify ending the childs life before birth.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Number 2 can be taken care of in numerous ways. There's no reason the mother should be the primary caregiver by default. There's also adoption.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 

quote:

---

Yes, but none of those justify ending the childs life before birth.

---

quote:

---

The argument that some people make disasterously wrong choices, so other people should be deprived of their choice, how much sense does that make?

---

quote:

---

Nick, that's your opinion. It's not a fact.

---

quote:

---

The people who want to choose for others are mostly upper middle class, white, affluent, powerful.

---

What is this based on?

Dagonee
Edit: First study I could find directly contradicts this: http://maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu/socio/kuechler/309/ab-po93.html

[ April 26, 2004, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Because the vast majority of our Republican legislators are rich, affluent, white men.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Oh and ak and Jeni....thank you. You're both awesome
 

---

Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
 

quote:

---

If there's a real person with rights growing in that uterus, then the mother has responsibilities greater than her own will. But of course, all of this hinges on the initial assumption.

From a purely Constitutional standpoint, I totally disagree with Roe vs. Wade. Then again, this stems from a larger beef I have with the Supreme Court reading things into the Constitution. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

---

quote:

---

I could never bring myself, whether im pro-choice or pro-life, to tell a woman that she has to be pregnant when she does not want too.

---

I used to feel this way too, until I realized that the one who needs more defense than the woman is the baby she's trying to kill.

[ April 26, 2004, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
If I didn't have my Constitutional Law exam Wednesday I'd give a basic rundown. Right to privacy is a simplification of what's involved with "implied" rights, inlcuding abortion.

Maybe someone who's already gone through this can give a basic description of rights implied by substantive due process...

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"The people who want to choose for others are mostly upper middle class, white, affluent, powerful."

Bah. The MOST you can say is that, over the last few hundred years, the people who have been ABLE to choose for others have been most of these things.

I guarantee you that if you threw the lower class, non-white, and weak people the ability to choose for others, they'd be all over it.

[ April 26, 2004, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
PSI, I agree with 99% of your post. We have the same worldview: i.e. we both believe the ultimate object of sex is procreation, not recreation. And if one engages in sex for recreational purposes, one must be willing to accept the consequences.

However, everything you've written about women and responsibility should also apply to men as well. A man also has the choice not to have sex. But in our male dominant society, when a man makes the wrong choice he is not burdened as a woman is burdened.

To steal a slogan from one of Kasie's pictures: If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

edited for fun.

[ April 26, 2004, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
In general, women are slightly more likely to favor abortion restrictions than men.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Substantive Due Process. Oh, yes. Great times in the ol' Con Law class.

Let's see if I can remember it well enough to wing a short summary.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says, in part, that "No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." So, of course, we have had a ton of cases talking about what "due process" actually is.

At some point, the courts also started thinking about what "liberty" means in that clause. Does it just mean that you can't be imprisoned without due process? That is the most obvious meaning, but is it really all that "liberty" means?

For the most part, the Court has said no. Liberty means more than freedom from imprisonment. What it means precisely is still a mystery, but many Justices have detected some kind of Right of Privacy within the meaning of that term. Others have said that this clause, when read in conjunction with several others, creates kind of an "aura" of rights, which includes privacy to some degree. (The phrase "emanations and penumbras" comes to mind, but I don't know if that is precisely the phrase that was used.)

So, even though the Constitution doesn't mention "privacy" directly, some kind of privacy right is supposed to be contained in the document, mostly in the word "liberty."
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Beren, what can I say? Men and women have different hardware, so they will never be exactly equal. All we can do is the best we can do.
 

---

Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
 
There's also that annoying Ninth Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, "Just because we didn't mention it don't mean you don't have it."

My perspective is that there may be a right to privacy but that it should usually be overridden by other people's right to safety. The majority of situations where a person might want to maintain privacy involve planning to harm someone else, so far as I can tell.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 

quote:

---

There are things that are worse, in other words, than killing an unborn child.

---

Like what?

Sorry if you've already explained this. I've missed out on the last few pages of this thread.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
It is not as if we're getting really close to achieving equality and we're just fine tuning the specifics.

I'm reminded of Pooka's thread about stay at home mothers. Some of us say biology mandates that women shall make greater sacrifices in the name of procreation, and yet instead of celebrating that sacrifice, our society marginalize women for their child rearing obligations.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
But you can only do so much when you make laws. The rest comes from a person's personal feelings, and you can't affect that unless you just want to put alot of money into education. (Not that I'm against that). No law or legal action is going to force people to see childrearing as a viable and important job.

All you can do is make it possible for women and men to have the same opportunities, and then teach people to accept it, if they choose to. You can't force people to change their attitudes.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
If childrearing is not valued as an important job to be shared by both sexes, can you blame women who would prefer not to undertake that burden alone?

But, I agree with you that we cannot force people to change their attitudes. We can only do our best, and hope.

quote:

---

My wife and I are helping a young mother who decided to keep her child-- well, keep her child. (This is the second time we've done this) It's not easy for anyone.

---

quote:

---

If childrearing is not valued as an important job to be shared by both sexes, can you blame women who would prefer not to undertake that burden alone?

---

quote:

---

There is much that's ugly and desperate in the world. . .
Yet often the choices in life are not between a good and an evil, but between various options all of which are horrible. There are things that are worse, in other words, than killing an unborn child.

---

quote:

---

The women's rights issue is that men can choose to have sex with no consequences, whereas women cannot.

Abortion allows women the same choices as men. (Or at least, choices that are as equitable as we can make them.)

---

quote:

---

The women's rights issue is that men can choose to have sex with no consequences, whereas women cannot.

Abortion allows women the same choices as men.

---

If this is what is being taught in sexual education classes these days. . .

STD's, anyone? No one gets to choose the consequences of having sex these days.
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Well, there's a thought. We could make it illegal in the States, and any woman who really wanted one could just hop a plane to Canada. Safe, fairly inexpensive, considering the exchange rate.

'kidding, of course.
 

---

Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
 
What?? Do I read this correctly that abortions are legal in the US at pretty much ANY time?

In that case I refine what I said earlier. (Although I'm still with Ela, I think.)

I can see that it is hard to define the moment when a "person" begins. A sensible compromise, legally, would make most sense to me. Where I grew up, abortions were possible up to something like 2 months into pregnancy.

So I do think that a woman should have the right to choose -- but I also think this choice should be made early on during pregancy.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Another example was a friend of mine who had one child with downs, (when she was young enough that the doctor had not recommended an amnio) and wanted to get pregnant again. She was planning to abort the fetus if it had downs.

I don't know what I would do in that circumstance, but I do know that I think this should be her choice, and the courts should not get involved. The earliest you could do an amnio then, if I remember correctly, gave you an answer some time in the second trimester. I don't know if that's changed.

Edited to add that the baby was fine after all so this story had a happy ending.

[ April 27, 2004, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Kasie, are you going to write a piece on this March for your Journalism class?

Would you mind if I used some of your pictures on my blog (hosted on my own bandwidth)? I will give you proper photography credit, either "Kasie Hunt" or, if you prefer, "Vagina Warrior." I would understand if you said no, so no pressure. (before you agree, you might want to remember that I never sent in my feminism survey... bad Beren... BAD.)

I know the pictures may offend some of you, but they really *are* pretty funny.

[ April 27, 2004, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Beren, wouldn't Womb Warrior be more zippy?
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Sal,

I think the decision is often made very quickly, by nature. And, also by people cognizant of their situation. As I understand it (could be grossly wrong, believing in what I read and having a penis), people's decisions are a drop in the bucket compared to those of nature regarding which conceptions move forward.

falloww
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Jeni, you have to see the pictures to get that one.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
aka-- Are you saying that you think the courts should make a distinction between 'normal' fetuses that should not be aborted and 'abnormal' fetuses that CAN be aborted legally?
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
It really all goes back to whether you consider featuses as human beings. You wouldn't, for example, suggest that a woman have the right to kill her two-day old baby just because the baby is the result of rape or had down syndrome.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Anne Kate, I'm just curious...your friend would have aborted a down syndrome baby in the second trimester? Meaning, anywhere from 3-6 months of growth? (I think that's what you meant when you said that they didn't get info until an amnio in the 2nd trimester.)

Doesn't that seem a little LATE...doesn't the baby seem a little BIG to still use the "It's My Body" argument? (sorry, I've been reading along and this post just made me want to ask that question.)

I guess it STILL comes down to the "When is the baby a person" question.
 

---

Posted by FIJC (Member # 5505) on :
 

quote:

---

"I honestly felt strange because I felt like they assumed I hated them and in turn hated me."

---

quote:

---

Planned Parenthood says Child Sex is OK!!!!

---

quote:

---

"Dear hmj,

There is no wrong or right age for a person to lose their virginity. Having sex is a big decision. There are lots of feelings and responsibilities to consider. The only person who can tell if you're ready to have sex is YOU!"

---

quote:

---

The Founder of Planned Parenthood was an Extreme Racist and a Nazi Sympathizer

---

quote:

---

Life Dynamics researchers say they also found "irrefutable evidence" that pro-abortion-rights organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation "knowingly conceal" the crimes of sexual abuse of minors "while aiding and abetting the sexual predators who commit them."

---

quote:

---

Someone on hatrack once gave the example of their 15 year old daughter who was attacked and raped. She was affected terribly and was desperately depressed and suicidal. He felt sure that if she had to remain pregnant with the rapist's child, and bring it to term, she would have committed suicide beforehand.

---

See, ak, speaking to someone who claims a set of religious beliefs, I find it hard to understand how you could believe that God doesn't create life and have a purpose for each individual life. I know that people who aren't religious wouldn't let that argument stand, but nothing confuses me more than someone who says they believe in an omnipotent God, yet somehow they fail to see how he can make a life worth living.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that the reason they pick the 14th week to do the amnio is because that's when certain chemicals are present in the fluid. In other words, it's the best time to get the best results. An amnio done earlier could be incorrect.

[ April 27, 2004, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by dangermom (Member # 1676) on :
 
In the interests of accurate information:

Amniocentesis can be performed between 15 and 18 weeks (though when I had it done in 2000, they would not do it after 16 weeks). Before that, there is a riskier procedure called CVS that can be done between 10 and 12 weeks. An amnio takes out amniotic fluid and pieces together a picture of the baby's chromosomes, which are IIRC floating around semi-freely.

People can and do abort babies based on results of amnio tests.

[ April 27, 2004, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: dangermom ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
But I'm pretty sure that the test done to check for spina bifida and Downs is more accurate depending on the time that it is administered.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Thanks, so I'm remembering basically correctly that it's in the 4th month that's the soonest an amnio will be done?

PSI, I don't know what to tell you except that I believe God gives us our free agency for a good reason, and that I don't believe He causes genetic defects, any more than I believe He is responsible for sending punitive viruses to afflict people, or that lightning rods subvert God's will by preventing bolts of electricity from the blue.

It's certainly not true that anyone who believes in God has to be in favor of legislation against abortion. Do you feel anyone who believes in God should also be in favor of legislating sexual abstinence outside marriage? Or like in some Islamic countries how they make it illegal to not be Islamic? I feel that agency is the most important principle, and I don't feel qualified to make these decisions for other people.

I'm not sure I really feel qualified to make them for myself, even. I hope I never have to. Why would I feel qualified to make them for someone else?

Many genetic defects will kill a developing fetus. Downs is one which, while serious enough to cause severe health problems, is not always serious enough to kill the baby in utero. My friend's boy did almost die many times in his first year of life, and would have certainly died without the open heart surgery and intensive care hospital treatment over a period of months. By intervening and not letting him die in infancy did they subvert God's will? How can anyone say with total certainty what God intended here?

I personally feel that God doesn't commit the errors of this world, nor cause the problems, but we are here in order to find the moral path we should take through all of the pitfalls and troubles which arise in mortal existence. If the answers were all easy, we would not need to live in order to discover them.

[ April 27, 2004, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
AKA, you have said you feel qualified to defend those who cannot defend themselves.

Why is abortion different?

[ April 27, 2004, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
 
AK, I don't want to decide for anyone. Thing is, it's always seemed to me that this kind of decision should be out of everyone's hands. Out of my hands, out of the court's hands, out of the parents' hands too. Blanket illegality. I don't feel as though I'm "making a decision for someone" when I say that abortion ought to be illegal; just the opposite.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
AK, remember that each spirit chooses to join in on mortality here on earth. That each child, born or unborn knows exactly what they are getting in for and still wants to come. I agree that if the mother's life is at stake, safe the mother, and I can see th arguments about rape victims (on which I'm still undecided). But how can you choose to null that childs choice to come live here on earth because you think it would be hard for them? They choose to come here knowing that, willing to go through what it is they were faced with.

You know I love you AK, but I really have to strongly disagree with you here.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Me too Hobbes. This takes us from a "choice/pro-choice" argument to an argument about the nature of God and the universe.

You said that you believe that "God doesn't cause the errors of this world" to which I can cautiously say "I agree." Yet, I believe firmly that God knows about the errors and who will be affected by them. I firmly believe in the truth of the scripture that God won't give us more than we can bear...but I do know that He allows stuff to happen to test and try us. This could be a hurricane in our hometown, a baby with cerebral palsy, or the death of a loved one unexpectedly. This is why I believe that the choice isn't ours to make.

But then in the every-day abortion debate arena, this argument doesn't hold water, so that's why I usually just read along without saying anything.

[ April 27, 2004, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
And I don't question your beliefs, any of you, and your right to apply them to your own stewardships. What I question is whether your stewardship extends to my friend's family. I don't believe it does. I believe she was made steward of her family.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
mmmkay. I understand what you mean. So a question that I have (that I'm sure has been asked a gazillion times on this thread and others) is just how far should our 'stewardship' go. There are some obvious choices badly made that can get us punished in this society...and most people agree that this is the way it should be. So, how much fits under the "I did it for the good of my family and it's my own business" umbrella?

That is an impossible question. It comes back, again *sigh* to the "Is abortion murder?" question. The answer to this question would probably dictate whether it would still be within her stewardship to make that particular choice for her family.

This is all just talking out loud. I'm not coming to any solid conclusions here, so don't mind me.

[ April 27, 2004, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Narnia:"I firmly believe in the truth of the scripture that God won't give us more than we can bear..."

Are you referring to 1 Corinthians 10:13? If so, remember that it speaks only of temptations, not trials or suffering in general. We are not promised protection from "more than we can bear" except in the case of temptation, and even then the promise is conditional.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Yes that one...and some other supporting ones that discuss trials etc. But that's another thread.
 

---

Posted by Greg V (Member # 6499) on :
 
Sorry guys, my post was really poorly written last ngiht. I wrote it at 3 AM after reading all six pages of this discussion for like 2 hours.

Regarding that website I posted, it did use some language that I admit is pretty stupid, i.e. "PP says child sex is OK" and "PP protects sexual predators", although there is some truth to each statement.

I don't like how PP has no problem telling young children, even in middle school that there's nothing wrong with having sex at that age, regardless of the fact that it's part of their whole "sexual education". If I had a child that was that young, and people tried to tell them that "It's ok to have sex as long as you use protection, but if protection doesn't work, get an abortion." I was taught that sex is a special thing that aught to be saved. It's stuck in my mind. I would feel good if that's what my kids were taught too.

It's all about proper sexual education. I don't know what the best type of sex ed is though. I'm personally for abstinence education in an ideal world, but we don't live in that world. People will still want to have sex. I'd rather people know how to use birth control methods properly than resorting to an abortion.
 

---

Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
 

quote:

---

Far too few kids are adopted. For a white middle class mother, adoption is very much an option. For a lower class black mother, her kid will be lucky to find a parent, and will most likely be shuttled around the foster system instead.

---

quote:

---

The problem is that it is more socially acceptable to get an abortion than it is to have the child and then give it up for adoption.

---

quote:

---

Meh? Are there as many anti-adoption groups as there are pro-life groups? Do people protest outside orphanages? Did you read all the instances in this thread where posters are against abortion and completely support adoption?

---

quote:

---

Approximately 3% of waiting children have waited less than a month to be adopted after the termination of parental rights. 16% of the children waited 1-5 months, 30% waited 6-11 months, 20% waited 12-17 months, 12% waited 18-23 months, 7% waited 24-29 months, 4% waited 30-35 months, 7% waited 3-4 years and 2% waited 5 or more years.

---

quote:

---

Yes, too few kids are adopted. But virtually all babies are adopted when the parents give up their rights to the baby.

---

quote:

---

But I must tell you of the small moment that was actually a big moment. (There's a possible spoiler coming up, so if you don't know the story and mean to see the play, stop here.) An important moment in the plot is when a character announces she is pregnant, and considering having an abortion. In fact, she tells her mother-in-law, she's already put $5 down with the local abortionist. It is a dramatic moment. And you know as you watch it that when this play came out in 1960 it was received by the audience as a painful moment--a cry of pain from a woman who's tired of hoping that life will turn out well.

But this is the thing: Our audience didn't know that. They didn't understand it was tragic. They heard the young woman say she was about to end the life of her child, and they applauded. Some of them cheered. It was stunning. The reaction seemed to startle the actors on stage, and shake their concentration. I was startled. I turned to my friend. "We have just witnessed a terrible cultural moment," I said. "Don't I know it," he responded.

And I can't tell you how much that moment hurt. To know that the members of our audience didn't know that the taking of a baby's life is tragic--that the taking of your own baby's life is beyond tragic, is almost operatic in its wailing woe.

But our audience didn't know. They reacted as if abortion were a political question. They thought that the fact that the young woman was considering abortion was a sign of liberation. They thought this cry of pain was in fact a moment of self-actualizing growth.

Afterward, thinking about it, I said to my friend, "When that play opened that plot point was understood--they knew it was tragic. And that was only what, 40 years ago." He said, "They would have known it was tragic even 25 years ago."

And it gave me a shiver because I knew it was true.

---

quote:

---

Cheering for Choice
Kim DiMasi - Chicago

Any piece of work dealing with any kind of repression, including that of choice, will be met with passion simply due to the fact that it is in debate. The fact that the people in your particular circumstance reacted the way they did is only a testament to the fact that Americans are sick of women being denied their freedom to make a simple choice about the rest of their lives. I agree that it may not have been the time or place for a cheer, but if anything it should show you that a wind of change blows through our culture. One that will no longer see Americans suffer at the hands of a deaf, dumb and blind administration.

---