BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 13 - 08:42 PM

Ah, the joys of anonymity...

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Angela Galbraith
Date: 08 May 13 - 12:03 AM

"There are very good reasons (once you have a law permitting abortion) why you must extend the right to way beyond (?) the first three months of pregnancy. Even women who are educated in such matters may not realise they are pregnant within three months. As things stand, If you discover you're pregnant at ten weeks you will find it almost impossible to get the medical attention and bureaucracy sorted out before twelve weeks."

That's some what of an odd and uniformed observation on your part. Especially when our on countries NSH statistics clearly state that 89% of abortions were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation; 67% were at under 10 weeks.

I guess our bureaucracy is far more efficient, and the women of the UK are far more intelligent than you give us credit as being, or perhaps we are just far better informed, and just more intelligent than you?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 13 - 01:09 AM

Ever notice that all those who are FOR abortion, have already been born???
Ever notice, that those same people avoid personal responsibility for their actions?
Ever notice that Women are supposed to have the corner on 'intuition'...and want control over their own bodies......how come they can't keep their legs closed to someone their intuition should have told them was a flaky asshole??? and to remedy it, something has to die???
Just a thought...........

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 13 - 05:19 AM

Steve Shaw is right. How anyone can assert that a 33% reduction in abortion availability is anything other than an attack on women baffles me. And of course the most vulnerable are those least likely to be able to get within a 12 or 13 week time limit. Women should have abortions if they want them.

FFS, you are as offensive as ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 May 13 - 09:03 AM

I acknowledge what you say as a correction to my somewhat outdated opinion, Angela. However, if you look at the statistics, there has been a vast improvement in the last ten years in getting abortions carried out early. That is excellent. And I'd point out that 89% of abortions within 13 weeks still means 2000 abortions a year after that. I'm guessing (correct me) that the bulk of those will be young women from poorer backgrounds. And the bureaucracy is still quite daunting. The numbers of women having extremely late abortions is very small. We simply don't need time limits. We need lots of other things, but not time limits. The other thing, is, OK, I might have been underestimating UK women (never wise, I've oft discovered :-( ) - but it won't be the same everywhere, will it?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 13 - 11:01 AM

Richard Bridge: "How anyone can assert that a 33% reduction in abortion availability is anything other than an attack on women baffles me."

I'm sure it would baffle you....being as the women are not the ones being attacked....try thinking of an innocent, defenseless child, or fetus. Don't you think some THOUGHTFULNESS BEFORE one gets careless would be an attack on no one????......
.......or do we always have to compensate for the reckless....enabling them to continue to be reckless?.....
.....and BTW, abortion on demand, may SEEM like a quick fix solution, but then have you ever talked in depth, to a woman who has had one, and then reflects back about what she thinks about...for years later???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Angela Galbraith
Date: 08 May 13 - 12:52 PM

Steve, I must commend you for correcting yourself with dignity about the intelligence of UK women. I would suggest to you that all women no matter where they are in the world are equally intelligent when it comes to knowing their own bodies and are more than capable of making self informed choices in that regard. We know things that no man could ever know or book could ever teach about what we feel when it comes to our own bodies, no matter how gallantly the man may fight, or educator may seek to inform others for our cause of choice.

Just as there are many women who have never felt that overwhelming feeling of joy and wonder that comes with becoming a mother, but the choice of when or even when not should never be anyone's but their own, and none should ever be subjected to the despotic likes of a Kermit Gosnell and the many others like him who deceitfully claim to champion for our cause. They should be exposed and held in the highest of disdain, not hidden away for our own self-serving reasons.

I can only hope that we as women never become so detached by the cause that we forget that the choice we make must be for two, and ours alone. Only then can we deem to ourselves that our choice be true and just, no matter what that choice may be, no further proof is needed.

There is a wonderful book I read while at University and contains one of my favorite quotes that I think you would find profoundly intriguing, I know that I did.
Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood
by Kristin Luker

"Pro-choice and pro-life activists live in different worlds, and the scope of their lives, as both adults and children, fortifies them in their belief that their own views on abortion are the more correct, the more moral, and more reasonable. When added to this is the fact that should 'the other side' win, one group of women will see the very real devaluation of their lives and life resources, it is not surprising that the abortion debate has generated so much heat and so little light."


Of course we shall always be grateful to all gallant men who stand for the causes of our convictions, be they whatever they may be.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 May 13 - 09:06 PM

Yes, Angela, but here I go, stepping into territory into which blokes really ought to fear to tread... Knowing your body is not the same as knowing how to not get pregnant. I was involved, for my sins, in "sex education" in secondary schools for 25 years. Believe me, no matter how important it is to respect the fact that girls/women know their own bodies, I found it to be just as urgently important to ensure that both girls and boys knew that you could get pregnant first time, that you couldn't avoid pregnancy by jumping on and off your bed afterwards, that washing your vagina out with vinegar wouldn't stop you getting pregnant, that the rhythm method would almost certainly "get you into trouble", that the lad pulling out his willy at the last minute wasn't the ideal way to avoid pregnancy (and so on, ad nauseam). And I don't agree with your pro-life/pro-choice quote. My standpoint is predicated on practicality, not morality. I'll leave the latter to the religious among us, thanks. Moralising has got us where we are, with horribly-high abortion figures. Moralisers are abortion's greatest champions. I hardly ever hear moralisers (pro-lifers if you like) promoting education for sexual knowledge and self-respect and promoting social equality (they're always far too right-wing for that). Abortion's greatest enemies are those who seek genuine solutions, not just more of the same. Education and open-mindedness trump silly laws and time limits any day. As for your gallant men thing, well we blokes who can think genuine thoughts about this stuff hardly need your matronising, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 13 - 10:47 PM

FFS - I have indeed had those conversations. I have had them with good friends who were never sexual partners of mine but who were let down by selfish lovers, with partners from time to time of mine who had been let down by previous lovers at previous times, and with one then current partner who had been unable until very much the last minute to get the arrogant medical profession to believe her that there was something badly wrong.

And I would comment that the belief that should a "pro-choice" view prevail, no woman will ever be forced by the existence of choice to have an abortion so it is a senseless attempt to create a verbal equivalence to assert that antiabortionists would see a devaluation of THEIR lives and resources. They would merely have been prevented from forcing their views on others.

Women should have abortions if they want them. And, of course, they should be free not to have them if they don't want to.   Anyone believing that the need for abortions can be removed is living in la-la land, and the irony (maybe I should say the vileness) of it is that most of those who seek to reduce the availability of abortion or to terrorise women out of having abortions, or to terrorise the providers of abortions are men - so will never truly know what suffering an unwanted pregnancy can create - and ALSO seek to reduce the availability of contraception, to reduce support for a mother of an unwanted child, and to reduce support for the unwanted child.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 May 13 - 11:52 PM

Richard Bridge: "Anyone believing that the need for abortions can be removed is living in la-la land, and the irony (maybe I should say the vileness) of it is that most of those who seek to reduce the availability of abortion or to terrorise women out of having abortions, or to terrorise the providers of abortions are men -..."

Good luck...read it carefully!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Angela Galbraith
Date: 09 May 13 - 12:51 AM

Steve, perhaps I should have gone back and read some of your previous post before I offered you any kind of commendation for your earlier remark. You are clearly not only a self aggrandizing know-it all sexist bigot, but a poser and a fraud as well.

It's one thing to imply that women are somehow, even when educated; lacking in intelligence, but to have made some of the most callus and insensitive remarks as you have about women like myself that have in our life been faced with such a decision to terminate a pregnancy, but also carry two to full term I find not only offensive but even more despicable than any I've heard from Pro-Life extremist. More despicable because you have the unmitigated gall to assume a position of choice.

"The world we live in consists of people who (once you've discounted lunatics and idiots) are 100% against abortion."

Many women who choose to terminate a pregnancy must struggle hard to come to terms with that being the best solution, and then spend the rest of our lives dealing with the self doubt by reassuring ourselves that we would if confronted with that same set of circumstances make that same choice. We do not believe that decision is 100% wrong. To imply that millions of women who believe that are somehow "lunatics and idiots" is utterly despicable.

The statement you were remarking on describes the very struggle that I personally dealt with, "Abortion is one of the rare issues in a civilized society that(finds Civil Rights and Human Rights justifiably and sincerely at odds with one another)."

"You will not meet a single sane person on earth who thinks abortion is a good thing."

To again imply that millions of us who believe that the right and decision to make that choice is a good thing, some how renders us less sane than all on earth who believe to the contrary is beyond outrageous.

"We all hate abortion. No-one loves abortion. Abortion is a failure every time."

You clearly harbor absolutely no empathy for just how much of a challenge we faced in coming to terms with such a decision, yet you would deem us all a failure for believing our choice was just and true...how pathetic...talk about moralizing."

"I think the boundaries are so blurred as to make the distinction almost useless...I also think that the debate about "when life actually begins" is futile and depressing."

Well of course you would your a bloody bloke, you haven't got the slightest clue as to what goes on in a woman's body during pregnancy, although you spout your mouth off about it like you do.

Having terminated my first pregnancy early and carried two to full term I can tell you Stevie there is no blurring of the boundaries nor is when life begins some kind of futile quest; less it be to describe the experience to a man or even a women who has never experienced it.

That moment when for the first time you feel what before were nothing more than a flood of cascading emotional swings and nausea actually come to life inside you. To describe the wash of joy and wonder that floods your ever sense when what before you had considered a discomforting condition first comes to life inside you, and you know that what before was a thing is in fact a living being is indescribable and without question undeniable to the woman who experiences it, especially for the first time.

If anyone is qualified to make a distinction of when life begins, it would be the women who have been there and felt its emergence. And I among many others concur that it serves to be the one most profound reasons as to why we and so few other women seek (sought)legal late term abortions in comparison to early terminations of pregnancy.

If the likes of someone who could make such ludicrous and insensitive remarks without considering what they say about the women who have faced these struggles, is to be a self declared know-it all championing our cause, we would be better off with those who declare themselves our enemies.

You Stevie boy are no more a champion for the cause of choice, than the likes of a David Duke is a champion for the cause of Civil Rights. You both are equally pathetic, self-aggrandizing, arrogant bigots.

Now you and your mates can banter about your adolescent chauvinistic babble about your uninformed and ignorant opinions on abortion and choice from now to dooms day, and it will never make the truth about you any less true.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST
Date: 09 May 13 - 01:43 AM

Sanity, your wasting your breath on these blokes.

The fact that they are clueless to who the quote and author they are bashing is, exposes their ignorance on this issue. The fact that SHE is one of the most highly revered academics' by the Pro-Choice movement, both in the States and here, as well as one highly respected on the Pro-Life side of this issue; reveals all one need know about the true source of their juvenile opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 May 13 - 06:07 AM

FFS - learn to read. MOST (I did not say all, I know there are madwomen who seek to oppress their own sex) of the oppressors, in this context, of women are men. They MOSTLY are legislators in various small-town jurisdictions who want to restrict abortion, restrict contraception, restrict maternity benefits, restrict welfare and programs to empower single parents and the children of single parents - who even try to restrict sexual activity (except when they are doing it to someone they sought to disempower, and usually lying about it and sometimes illegally claiming expenses for doing it).   


Therblig - you need to learn to read as well. Steve said none of the things of which you accuse him. You speak of the (alleged) knowledge of women - yet deny women their own choices.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 13 - 06:10 AM

Well, Angela Galbraith, that rant is little more than a series of gross misrepresentations of both the content and (more crucially) the spirit of what I've said on this topic, and you spice it with a dose of rudeness that I certainly haven't accorded you. Until you cool down a bit instead of using the thread to get your own personal issues off your chest and shoot down people who genuinely try to think about these things, there really isn't much point trying to engage with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: John P
Date: 09 May 13 - 10:15 AM

Angela, your position seems to be that no man should have anything to say on the subject of abortion. Here's what you seem to be missing: most of us aren't talking about abortion. We're talking about whether or not it is appropriate to force women to have babies. And another thing you may have missed: we all get to talk about any damn thing we please.

I have to say that, even after I take out all the uncalled-for insults in your post, I still don't know if you are pro-choice, anti-abortion, or just generally angry. I do gather that you are pissed off at Steve because he thinks that abortions are bad things. I'd love to hear your rationale for any other position, if you can deliver it without insulting other people for things they didn't say or that you just misunderstood.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 13 - 04:05 PM

I think abortions are bad things but I think there should be no restrictions on women whatsoever. I honestly think that there can be no other starting point when addressing this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: John P
Date: 09 May 13 - 07:25 PM

Well, yes Steve, obviously. It's really too bad that so much of the rest of the world seems to believe that turning women into sexual slaves is OK. How do they live with themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 May 13 - 07:35 PM

In my opinion, Angela G scanned Steve Shaw's previous post(s) and decided that she knew what he was saying. She was wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 13 - 07:55 PM

Yeah, but this area is a bit of a minefield for us chaps, Ebbie. Our spirit and intentions can be good but you can make one little slip of language and the Angelas and the Shaniquas of this world are on you like a ton of bricks. That's fine, and, as a bloke, I'm acutely aware of the need to listen to the people on the sharp end - women - and constantly adjust my mindset according to what women say. But I can only respond to reason (and I would never claim that the ability to reason is more developed in us chaps, far from it). To put it rather crudely (I'm a northerner, you know), Shaniqua and Angela shit in their own beds when they let fly as they have done. I'm not allowed to say that, by their rants, they do the cause of women's progression in the world very little good, but I can still think it. It's too bloody scary and unfocussed to do any good, and, if you can't consider outcomes, well you might as well keep your mouth shut, I reckon.   I've rather clumsily stood up for women's rights and equality all my adult life, and I don't want to hear rants when I put forth my opinion that accuse me of being a bigot or a Nazi. Blokes need women, for sure, but human beings all need each other, ears akimbo.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: frogprince
Date: 09 May 13 - 08:09 PM

We have a local "pregnancy center", really a right-to-life organization, which publicises their promise to help women find forgiveness if they have sinned by having an abortion. With material like that around, it could be easy read the statement "abortion is bad" as "having an abortion is an evil thing to do".

One thought regarding Steve's stance, and that would be in regard to pregnancy from rape. As Steve noted some time back, the morning-after pill should be made available immediately; but there will be instances, if only when a traumitised woman does not bring herself to report a rape promptly, when that doesn't work out. I'm just thinking that, in that or other possible extenuating circumstances, it may not even be appropriate to say that the abortion itself is "bad"

This may be considered to be "straining at a gnat"; Steve's position is well stated and I respect it.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 13 - 09:02 PM

That is certainly food for thought. Still, I suppose that, for the girl undergoing the abortion, it still wouldn't exactly feel good.

Here's me, in a nutshell.

Talking about when life truly starts is futile. We've been rattling on about this for decades and there is simply no prospect for agreement. It inflames people on both sides and is all heat and no light. We have to move on from that - and, pro-lifers, it means a moral compromise on your part. Tough, but the argument is pointless and you have to come to terms.

If you need an abortion it almost certainly means you got pregnant when you didn't want to. The only way we will ever get abortion numbers down is by helping people to not get pregnant until they are ready. This is such a numskull, bleedin' obvious notion, yet it causes so much difficulty. Mainly from religion. People are going to have sex, not abstain. People who have sex can't rely on rhythm methods or withdrawal. Everyone likely to have sex (which is nearly everybody) needs to know about, and have free access to, contraception. Duh. They need to know about the mechanics of sex and pregnancy. The real stuff, not the behind-the-bikeshed stuff.

Sex is such a crucial part of human life that everyone involved in raising children needs to be involved in education about relationships. We need good parenting classes. We need every teacher in every school to be involved in showing children how to build respect for themselves and for others. Teachers are supposed to be paragons of virtue. Well let's see a bit of it. Your subject area is nowhere near as important as showing the kids in front of you that you respect them, they respect you, they respect each other, and why.

Religion has played a terrible part in maintaining women as inferior beings. It can make no contribution to this debate. The religion I know best preaches abstinence, sin, ignorance, and no contraception. Religion is part of the problem (or almost the whole of the problem), and cannot be involved in any solution. Religion champions abortion.

Unfettered access to abortion, regardless of income and with no time limits, is crucial. Deny abortion to women and you will get illegal abortion with all the misery that comes with it. At the same time, get teachers and parents in on the act and show young people how to control whether they get pregnant or not (that's the urgent bit) and a lot more than just that. The horrid abortion rate is everyone's issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 May 13 - 11:55 PM

Richard Bridge: "They MOSTLY are legislators in various small-town jurisdictions who want to restrict abortion, restrict contraception, restrict maternity benefits, restrict welfare and programs to empower single parents and the children of single parents - ..."

How come most all the emphasis is on '....programs to empower single parents and the children of single parents..."

Seems to me, (and others), that many of these programs empower people to BE single parents, and to have abortions.
How come the same people who are SO CONCERNED about "....programs to empower single parents and the children of single parents...." seem not to give a shit about whole nuclear families??....even view them with contempt...what's with that??
As it is, nobody is FORCING women to have babies, as much as they push women to get abortions....what's with that??
Having babies is a normal function in life....having abortions really isn't, when you come to think of it.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 May 13 - 12:04 AM

I would agree with all that, Steve Shaw, except for one thing: I do think there need to be time limits. If a pregnancy has proceeded for six months, say, and the fetus is viable I think an abortion, a pre-emptive extraction, should be permitted ONLY in cases of imminent danger to the mother. Even then I think it should be taken by cesarean. If the host, the mother, is in such bad shape that a pregnancy cannot be continued, surely the simple cesarean would be less traumatic to her system.

Complicating timelines is the fact that science is saving ever-younger babies. A generation ago, a two-pound fetus was simply not going to survive. That is no longer true.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 13 - 02:09 AM

Ebbie: "If the host, the mother, is ....."

Interesting choice of words.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 May 13 - 04:58 AM

i was watching a TED vid yesterday of the conception to birth journey and IMO it is quite clear that we are talking about human beings at an early stage being formed,even if the religious view of this being from conception is rejected.
IMO the "back street abortion" argument is a poor one.at the other end of life ,we might as well say take your dementia mum to the medics to be put down to avoid back street euthanasias.
of course we dont have them - yet!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 May 13 - 06:57 AM

Congratulations, pete, on producing the most inane of all your many inane posts.

That is indeed a difficult area, Ebbie. The thing is, though, that late abortions already represent a tiny minority of all abortions. I contend that good education along the lines I've suggested would reduce them to vanishingly-small numbers. The trouble with having time limits is that they give the anti-abortion lobby a handle. Their efforts and energy are overwhelmingly focussed on getting that limit down, and so the ugly fight continues. Well I think education is a far better way of avoiding late abortions. And let's not forget that illegal late abortions are the most traumatic, messy and dangerous of the lot. I admit that this particular area gives me a bit of a wobble, but I'm sticking to me guns, on reflection.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 May 13 - 09:09 PM

To start with, why not drop the loaded "pro-life" label and call it what it is: "anti-choice"

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 May 13 - 09:31 PM

I thought about 'hostESS', GfS, but it seemed a bit twee.

As for the label "pro-life" I agree that they have co-opted a designation they have not earned in any sense. As typified by the almost unanimous pro-capital punishment stance they take, they are not pro-life at all but anti-choice, as noted above by both Steve Shaw and Dick Greenhaus. I would respect them more if they were more forthright about it.

It seems strange to me that just about every plank of the anti-choice platform is antithetical to everything I hold dear. One would think there would be at least a few overlapping beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 13 - 10:42 PM

No, I was just referring to the word 'host'. I meant nothing about the 'ess'. Interesting choice, that's all.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 May 13 - 10:30 AM

"Pro-life" is a disgraceful term. If I have to use it, I try to remember to say "so-called" in front of it. Getting abortion numbers down (what you'd think would be a universal desire, until you see how some religions teach the very things that can only work to keep the numbers up) is a practical matter. Individual abortions may be full of angst and mixed emotions, but we can't discuss getting the numbers down unless we take a step back and remove the emotion (and the moralising) from the conversation. Inserting emotion into the very name of "your side" is a very bad start. "Pro-choice" is accurate and unemotional. "Anti-choice", unfortunately, has the smell of intolerance about it. "Anti-abortion" doesn't work for me because its opposite is pro-abortion, which is ludicrous. It's a sad thing, but the names we give to our respective factions are all too readily used as weapons against the other side. They get in the way of rational discussion. If we are sensible and wish to avoid polarisation, we simply have to start from the standpoint that we are all anti-abortion. That does not mean we all oppose abortion, or even wish to put any obstacles in the way of women. Then we have to see the issue as a practical one. We want to get those numbers down. We must talk about that without demeaning women, without moralising and without the "killing babies" style of emotional handbagging. Find common ground. There is some.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 May 13 - 11:16 AM

Steve Shaw: "Pro-life" is a disgraceful term."

..as is, 'pro-choice'.
Once fertilization begins, there is no 'choice' that that process begins OTHER THAN, being responsible, when there was a CHOICE, to act responsibly towards what it is that people have pushed out of balance. In other words, a 'moment of pleasure', while disregarding possible consequences...and as long as people are irresponsible regarding their actions, the question will go on, as long as people have a 'free' ride, to NOT take into account, that sometimes those 'moments of pleasure', are NOT at the top of the 'food chain' in prioritizing their lives.
The 'choice' begins with the moment one DECIDES(choice), to disregard the FACT, that their 'toys', are actually the reproductive system, hard wired, to continue the species. The 'allure' is nothing more than the 'mating dance' exploited, for lesser reasons.
..and that, my dear 'out of control' Mudcat horn-dogs, is the way it is.
I didn't write the rules...but I'm just reminding you that they exist, and are often overlooked, for selfish reasons.
Choice???....but more often than not, ignored!....
So, the term 'pro-choice' is quite a misnomer in itself!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 11 May 13 - 11:17 AM

Labels matter (check out Orwell in the appendix to 1984). The GOP has been very good at this kind of manipulative labeling: ie "death tax" instead of "estate tax", "Pro-life" instead of "Anti-choice", "Entitlements" instead of "Social Safety Net"

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 May 13 - 03:42 PM

Pro-choice refers to the womans's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. That is what everyone who uses the term means by it. It is, in that sense, perfectly accurate. Opportunistic moralising about other areas of choice whenever the word crops up, Guffers, is disingenuous and misleading. And thoroughly dishonest.

I suppose that the people who oppose the woman's right to abortion are anti-choice. That's accurate too, but again it carries that polarising factor with it. It reeks of intolerance and lack of understanding. I happen to think that people who oppose a woman's right to have an abortion are those things, but the name doesn't exactly help.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: frogprince
Date: 11 May 13 - 04:11 PM

Yuh:

Gfs: Do you believe that all married couples should produce as many children as possible? It's not an absurd question; there are people, united as the "full quiver" movement, who advocate that.

Do you believe that no one should ever have sex unless they are deliberately intending to conceive a child? Again, that is not a new idea.

Do you believe that any abortion, under any circumstances whatever, should be illegal and that every effort should be made to prevent it?
       That isn't even close to an absurd question; we have a remarkable number of politicians saying that, and a remarkable number of people voting for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 May 13 - 04:48 PM

Well, I don't think setting a quota would be good one way or another.
..and getting an abortion, for a woman is NOT altogether the healthiest thing for their emotional side, either. I posted a link to a woman who was 'Roe' of 'Roe vs Wade'...I thought it was more than 'telling' in several areas...her feelings, the political pressure, the legal fraud, and her regrets. You don't have to pin any labels on all those who happen to see her point, and agree with her....after all, it is 'Roe' of 'Roe vs Wade' fame. It would serve you well to check it out...if you haven't....and I don't think that she could be name called, as just an 'antiabortionist-anti-choice' bigot....do you?

Here is is again, in case you might be curious

Read it carefully...at least to get HER thoughts on it.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 May 13 - 07:20 PM

..and getting an abortion, for a woman is NOT altogether the healthiest thing for their emotional side, either.

What a bunch of ignorant, ill-informed, patronising, chauvinistic shite. Shame on you. I thought you were supposed to be some kind of counsellor.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 13 - 01:09 AM

Steve 'Feet in the Mouth Shaw: "What a bunch of ignorant, ill-informed, patronising, chauvinistic shite. Shame on you. I thought you were supposed to be some kind of counsellor."

That's right....and that's how I know it, unlike your political talking points nonsense, mixed with the wishful thinking that if you ignore it, (their emotional needs and hurts), it won't bother you at all!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 13 - 01:56 AM

Forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want isn't exactly the healthiest thing for a woman's emotional side either.

Nor, for that matter, is being unwanted real healthy for the emotions of the child.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 13 - 02:36 AM

Now how do we jump from curbing the amount of abortions, to 'forcing women to have babies'?
Sounds like a bunch of political over re-action and getting a little heavy on the dramatic. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything...except to support political policies, even if their 'religious' beliefs, tell them something else.....Oh, and the taxpayers, who, once again, have to fork out money to remedy the irresponsible actions of lamebrains.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 13 - 06:19 AM

Now how do we jump from curbing the amount of abortions, to 'forcing women to have babies'?

Under your regime of ignorance, intolerance and chauvinism there's no jump to be made. They are the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 May 13 - 07:54 AM

interesting link gfs.highlghts the issues the pro [unwilling mothers] choice side wish to dismiss and minimize.

don firth- and what do we do with the 2 yr old who becomes unwanted?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 13 - 09:13 AM

the pro [unwilling mothers] choice side

For your information, pro-choice refers to the belief that you should have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. If you so choose, you are not a mother, therefore you cannot be an "unwilling mother". If you choose to have your baby, you are a willing mother. Your vicious intolerance is showing through, I'm afraid.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 13 - 09:14 AM

If you so choose to have an abortion, that is. I'm having a bad grammar day.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 May 13 - 10:01 AM

don firth- and what do we do with the 2 yr old who becomes unwanted?

Jaysus, Pete, get a clue (or a life) will ya?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 May 13 - 03:37 PM

more to the point if you choose to have an abortion,you are no longer a mother - to that child.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 13 - 07:15 PM

You see, pete, that's where you and your benighted ilk have got it so wrong. If in doubt, appeal to emotion. Carry on. Do the mummy and baby stuff, and get no answers. The sooner you and your fellow-travellers see that abortion is a practical matter, not a moral or emotional one*, the sooner we can get to work on getting those numbers down. But that isn't what you want, is it, pete. Oh no, that would not suit your moralising agenda at all. Get those numbers down and you'd have nothing to moralise about!

*Which is in no way intended to demean individual women who have abortions. There's nothing in a man's compass that could begin to compare with the emotional wrangle of going through an abortion. But I'm talking about how we as society need to take a step or two back to see this issue in the round. And I always come back to the point that morals have no place in the discussion about getting abortion numbers down. Morality-preaching, in this issue above almost all others, serves to cloud the situation. And I have yet to see a religious standpoint on abortion that would do anything other thn maintain abortion numbers at a high level.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 May 13 - 07:54 PM

pete from seven stars link: "more to the point if you choose to have an abortion,you are no longer a mother - to that child."

Not only 'to that child', but legally also. In most cases, the natural parents have to sign an agreement, not to make contact with the child, and agree that the child's whereabouts will not be disclosed.

...and Pete, you also brought up a good point...AND it's even true!

GfS

P.S. The link I posted was 'Roe's of 'Roe vs Wade', stating her thoughts and feelings, and recalling the history of it. ...and then I get the backlash as if it was just my opinion, and how 'mean' I am.....when will some of you just grow the fuck up???

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 13 - 08:06 PM

and then I get the backlash as if it was just my opinion, and how 'mean' I am.....when will some of you just grow the fuck up???

Said with a thoroughly endearing lack of irony... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 May 13 - 10:11 PM

"more to the point if you choose to have an abortion,you are no longer a mother - to that child."

Not only 'to that child', but legally also. In most cases, the natural parents have to sign an agreement, not to make contact with the child, and agree that the child's whereabouts will not be disclosed." GfS

"Not to make contact" with the aborted child? It boggles the mind...

Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 May 13 - 10:20 PM

I don't think that Goofy knows the difference between "aborted" and "adopted."

Don Firth