BS: abortion south dakota

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: jacqui.c
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 06:58 PM

Like Kat I had my first child before I was 18, in the UK. We were just as ignorant of birth control and abortion there. It was a case of 'having to get married', although my parents objected and I had to go to court to get permission.

I would not change the way my life has gone, I was lucky enough to be able to make a life for myself and my two younger children after divorcing their father for adultery after five years of servitude. (I had three children in four years as he would not use contraception)

I think if the option had been available I would have had an abortion and my life would have been different. It would have been good to have had the choice.

More recently a close friend was in what she thought would be a long term relationship when she got pregnant and the father became very controlling and started to be threatening. She decided that this was not a relationship she wanted to be in and she talked to me at length about what to do about the baby. We went through the four alternatives - keep baby and stay with partner, keep baby and raise alone, have baby adopted and abortion. She made the decision, after a lot of heartache, that she could not deal with the first three and I went with her to the clinic when she had the abortion. Another woman may have made a different choice but for my friend this was what she needed to do. I would hate to think that her choice would have been denied to her because of someone else's beliefs.

I think that this is about control. I was certainly kept in my place during my first marriage, and with three small children and no family support (my parents disowned me) there seemed little choice but to accept the situation. I was lucky to have got out from under. Others aren't so lucky.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 07:03 PM

Good points, jacqui, and well said.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Cluin
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:03 PM

Gee, I wonder if they could implement abortion retroactively?

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:45 PM

Yeah, this is about control... Much the wat the Taliban controls it's women...

I mean let's get real here...

It's okay, in the eyes of the white guys who are in control, fir women to parade half friggin' naked on a beach with less than an ounce worth of actual cloth covering her body but it's not okay for a 14 year boy to have any part of his "butt crack" exposed??? (Legislation has been proposed in at least one state that would make the "butt crack" view a crime...)

Like what is this about???

Control, that's what...

And as for adoption??? Fine, let all of those who think there are plenty of folks who are ready to step to the plate and actually do it, do it!!! Every Wednesday on Channel 4 in Washington, D.C. reporter Barbara Harrison has a segment called "Wednesday's Child". In this she introduces some kid who would love nuthin' more than to be adopted.... Problem si that amny of these kids keep getting shown over and over as they get older... One kid has been on at least three times in the last two years...

But I agree with BillD that as a society we are not doing a good job educating folks about sex. Whhy??? 'Cause it's none of the governemnet's danged business, right? No, wrong. If the governemtn wants to take over a womans right to make decisions then bny-golly it had better be prepared to educate folks, other than thru incarceration....

Beam my up...

Bobertr

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 09:27 PM

"Democrats (59 percent) and independents (51 percent) identify as pro-choice, while Republicans (53 percent) are pro-life. There is essentially no gender gap: 48 percent of women and 49 percent of men say they are pro-choice."

Men are as worried as women are.

From (gulp), FOX NEWS

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:17 PM

Whether one likes the two-party system or not, one thing we CAN do is vote in a Democratic congress next fall, Sorcha. My friend is doing the media buying for the guy who is running against Cubin in your neck of the woods. I hear he has a good chance. It would be WONDERFUL to see her voted out in a GOP dominated state!

kat

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:30 PM

"Sooooo, how the HELL do we stop them????"

It will likely be done by the highest court in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:26 PM

Well, I ain't registering to no Chicago Tribune to tell ya that the current Suprmene Court will take Roe out...

For folks in lala land ya better either get over it or be prepared to organize 24/7 after the Supreme Courth whacks Roe...

Or find another country...

Tellin' me why you believe in pro-choice it is like preachin' to the choir...

And as for the Dems??? Don't expect too much... They would rather cater to the straglers and spill from ther Christain Right than stand up for anything...

Oh sure, it can be argues that the Repub pollsters and PR folks have boxed the Dems into a corner but it's the Dems who have gone without much protest...

Where is their "Contract with America"???

Bunch of chickens and they ain't standing up ****now**** in support of Roe....

Like I said, Roe is going down...

Sucks, but true...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:44 PM

With a Democratic controlled congress we stand a good chance of saving a woman's control of her body and life.

Bobert, when will you learn the power of your words? I know you don't think there's much difference between the two parties, but the Dems have always supported roe vs wade and they are not about to stop supporting it. If you think it is going down say so, but don't make it sound as though your prediction is written in stone. When push comes to shove the tide will turn (how's that for mixing metaphors?-:)

Here ya go...a pronouncement: George Bush et al are going to go down before the end of his term. He has enough rope to hang himself and is doing exactly that. The pendulum is swinging the other way and I guarantee there will be change!

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,MarkS
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:49 PM

I just do not think it is a big deal if Roe gets overturned. All that means is that a federal prohibition against anti-abortion laws will be lifted and the authorization of abortion will once again be a State responsibility.
Sure, some retrogressive States like South Dakota will prohibit abortion (Utah too, probably), but the overwhelming majority will still allow choice.
After all, prior to Roe making the point moot, several States had already lifted their abortion bans, and more were in the pipeline.
And if the people in South Dakota have second thoughts, they can make it an issue at the ballot box.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 03:24 AM

The Supreme Court is doubtless in Bush's pocket after the most disgraceful gerrymander.

I have no doubt that Roe is going down, and probably a whole lot of other protections too.

If some states retain legal abortion while some prohibit abortion, the prohibitionists will impliment provisions making it a crime to travel for abortion, too, and to aid abet or counsel such travel. Advertisements receivable in such states for abortion or abortion counselling will become illegal - wath out ISPs who transmit them.

Ireland, in thrall to its theocracy, has tried most of these measures already

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bert
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 03:36 AM

We don't stand a chance of voting in anyone as long as Bush and his buddies control the voting machines.

Let's face it. Bush was 'elected' in the first UNVERIFIABLE election in the US. And his buddies made the machines that voted him in.

He is not REALLY our president.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 04:33 AM

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, I'd say there may be several states that will have enough votes to pass laws to outlaw abortion. As far as I can tell, all 50 state legislatures need only a simple majority to pass a law that will make abortion (or other acts) a crime.
Here in California, it takes a 2/3 majority to pass a law to raise taxes to support schools.
Is there equity in that?
I think it's wrong to criminalize an act unless a significant majority agree with criminalization. Why should 51% of the people be allowed to coerce the 49%?

I'm a Catholic, and I think that abortion is generally immoral, although perhaps there are times when it may be justifiable. But whether abortion is right or wrong, I think it's a serious mistake to criminalize it.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Once Famous
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 08:01 AM

Abortion kills life. There is justifiable abortion and then there is not.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 08:09 AM

Kat,

Had the Dems truely been supoortive if Roe they would haver filibustered Alito to the moon... They would have pulled out evry stop.. It would have been Frazier/Ali in Manila... It would have been balls to the wall...

Richard,

Yes, the Christain Right will press for legislation making it a crime to cross a state line to get an abortion...

Others,

But there is an upside to this and it is the post-Roe-era. It will provide one heck of a lot of the same motivation juices that the Christain Right has used to fight from the position of underdog... The "silent majority" is getting sand kicked in it's face by these folks and not doing much in the way of defending iself... There are a lot of reasons for this... Fear of retribution, too busy making a living, too busy consumer, plain apathy, denial, ect, ect. but when face with very adverse circumstances it is possible that the US can aviod Germany's little 1930's experiement... At least the atmosphere will be right (opp's, wrong word...) condusive...

And maybe the Democartic Party will get it's head out of Karl Rove's butt....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,redhorse at work
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 08:22 AM

The stupid thing about this is that the right-wing legislators think they will stop abortions by passing these laws. Unless you also impose (and enforce) a law that makes it illegal to travel outside the state or country, all you have done is put up the price. Those who can afford to travel will have their abortions elsewhere. Look at what went on in Ireland when abortion was illegal there but not in UK.

The effect of these laws is to bear down on the poor, while letting those who pass the laws bathe themselves in smug self-righteousness.

nick

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Grab
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 08:34 AM

I hate the very phrase "pro-life". It means that the other side are "anti-life". Well at the stage an abortion takes place, there is no "life" at all - and Mother Nature herself ensures that most fertilised embryos are spontaneously aborted, which gives the lie to anyone thinking there's somehow something sacred about a fertilised embryo. Sorry, but no.

The Dying Rooms of China and Romania should be ample proof for anyone that unwanted pregnancies are better terminated for all concerned. Western children's homes are better, but they ain't anything *close* to a family environment. Children's homes can only guarantee that these kids will survive to 18, not that they'll have anything like a real life. I can't think of anything more evil than forcing a child to grow up in the knowledge that they're fundamentally unwanted and uncared-for.

Abortion should always be the last option available. For one thing, it's painful and potentially damaging. But the only form of contraception that's 100% guaranteed is to have no sex at all, which is unacceptable for any couple. So I don't believe anyone can believe in the right of couples (or single women) to control their own fertility and also oppose abortion. Either you allow abortion on request, or you believe that people (and women especially) don't have the right to say whether they have children or not. There is no middle ground, as far as I'm concerned.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: MaineDog
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 08:37 AM

You're almost there, nick. It's not that all abortions have to be stopped, but that the Nation must not support them. If the Nation sins, then everyone in it will be condemned. If individuals sin, then only those who are guilty will be condemned. Whose job is it to keep sinners from sinning, or to keep the poor out of poverty? Of course it isn't "fair" that we can't get everything we want. Should we therefore, ban lotteries, which can bestow underseved benefits on people?
MD

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Alba
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 08:38 AM

Exactly Nick.

Bobert...now you are getting the idea...motivation...regardless of the unknown outcome. Focus rather than accept the unaccepatble and take action rather than reacting.

If Roe goes down...Wade will follow.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 09:32 AM

"If the nation sins...?"

Sorry there, Maineiac, but "sin" is not a legitimate concern of government.

Assuming its a legitimate concern at all.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 09:34 AM

It may surprise many of you but I am pro choice.   I also believe Roe v Wade should be overturned.    I believe that 10 years ago abortion was a 50%/50% issue in the USA.   Today I believe it is more like 60% pro life and only 40% pro choice.   Most legitimate polls confirm that.

Therefore, since we are a republic, the will of the people should be followed.   If there was a national reforendum, I have no doubt that pro life would win.   How anyone could view following the will of the majority of the people as being a Nazi is beyond me.    (Same people who thought that Prince Harry dressing as a Nazi was a good idea)

If Roe is defeated, it reverts back to the States.   The concept that all woman will have to have back alley abortions in Mexico is rediculous.   Mexico doesn't have alleys.   Some States like NY or Vermont, or California will allow abortions.   Others won't.   I like that idea as people can choose to live in a state that follows their political or ideological leanings.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: MaineDog
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 09:47 AM

Greg,
I did not say that the sin issue is a legitimate concern of our government, but I believe that it is among the driving concerns of the "radical fundamentalist" anti-abortionists. It comes from fear and from an overly literal interpretation of the Bible, IMO. I do think that abortion is murder, regardless of what the government thinks about it.
But that does not give me the right or duty to go out and punish offenders.
MD

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 10:21 AM

LarryK, that is asinine. Poor women cannot get to other states when they have no transportation nor means to pay for it. They also do not have the means to move to the state of their choice. Nor, should women have to pull up stakes for such a personal issue.

It still just amazes me that people think the government has any business telling a person what they can and cannot do with the most intimate parts of their body.

There is no way to compare men and women in this situation, but think for a moment: the closest anaology might be men who use vasectomies as contraception. Isn't it a violation of their sperms' rights to procreate? Shouldn't it be outlawed and doctors who perform such sent to jail? Surely it goes against all Christian scripture to go forth and multiply!

That old, tired saw is still true: If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a revered law.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 10:42 AM

"The stupid thing about this is that the right-wing legislators think they will stop abortions by passing these laws."

The above quote is one of the more insightful remars made yet.

I heard from my aunt years back that girls who 'got in trouble' would purchase penny royal from the druggist and swallow it (I don't know how much). This old memory thinks it caused convulsions and resulted in an abortion. The era: 1920s and 1930s.

I am of two minds to do with abortion. I oppose it because (as has been noted by both Martin and Joe speaking of their own views), I perceive it to be wrong on 'moral' grounds--I am strongly opposed to it being used as a retroactive form of birth control. I think abortion on demand is the ultimate method of turning people into statistics. Uh, I was too preoccupied to use precautions and I need to get rid of my little mistake. HOWEVER, kids get pregnant because 'young hearts beat fast' and things happen. Unwanted pregnancies occur for myriad reasons--not all of them nice or good.

The story someone told about a friend who chose abortion as the last option is one I have heard many times. The gal still agonizes over it, and no doubt will for the rest of her life. I don't think the decision to abort is entered into lightly by most people.

As a very young teenager, my best friend and his girlfriend got involved, used no precautions (mostly because neither of them knew how to and I was no help because I didn't know what 'precautions' were, and she got pregnant. We had no one to turn to because who could you tell that to in 1962. They were fourteen years old (I was thirteen). We finally found an abortionist--I am pretty sure the guy and his nurse were not a moonlighting doctor and nurse team. She lived through it, but I understand she was never again able to get pregnant after that.

We cannot go back to those days. If there are going to be abortions, then they must be handled by people who know what they are doing--and that means medical doctors in hospitals or clinics that are sterile and equipped with the necessary life suppost systems for the girl or woman in the event things don't quite go as planned. Too many kids have left 'butcher shops' and bled to death or died from needless infection. No more of that. Please.

Bobert pointed out that education is the key. I have to agree. There is no 'easy' answer for this. Abortion is often wrong. It is often not wrong, too. In a perfect world, abortion would not be necessary; nor would it be seen as an answer to aspects of human carelessness, oversight or accident. However, the world ain't perfect.

I disagree that the attempt to criminalize abortion is specifically meant to be a mechanism to control women, but I understand how people could see it that way. This swing to the right and the polarization of people scares the hell outta me, but it is simply a continuance of an agenda that seems to be there but never talked about, an agenda to dominate all people everywhere in all aspects of their lives. It is prompted by all the wrong motives. As was noted above, likely the best bet in getting the US back on track is to vote very wisely in 2006. I wish you well.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 10:48 AM

Sorry. That should have read '1960'.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 10:53 AM

You beat me to it, kat.....let me just add, Larry, that if you think a country where people on one side of a river, who have the same president and *constitution* as those on the OTHER side of the river should live under different moral principles because 51% have been sold a different bill of goods, you have a strange notion of what the point of a Republic IS!

This is not 1897, where travel is slow & tedious and living in another state is almost like living in a different world....everyone is linked by TV, travel and internet...we all know what is going on across the country, and it makes NO sense for one area to pretend to huddle in the past with antiquated laws restricting personal freedoms that their neighbors enjoy.

What DOES make sense is for those who prefer more conservative ways of making choices to go ahead and practice them.....and leave their neighbors who feel differently alone!

Re-creating a system where there is clandestine traffic across state lines to get abortions is beyond ludicrous!...it is also divisive and expensive.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 01:45 PM

It would have been balls to the wall...

That sounds very uncomfortable. What does it mean?

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 04:04 PM

McG -

balls to the wall

The derivation I've always heard is that in most aircraft you push the "balls" - the knobs on the throttle, mixture, and prop pitch control levers, to the "wall" - the control panel, in order to "proceed at maximum speed."

A corollary implication not particularly well known is that most aircraft are/were designed to be capable of "emergency power" that will destroy the engines if sustained more than briefly, so that the meaning for those who know is:

At maximum speed and at risk.

"Modern" pilots refer to it as "full military power," or just "full-military," and most turbine engines are installed so that they can be operated at 105% or 110%, occasionally more, of "maximum sustained thrust" for brief periods in an "emergency."

No documentation at hand for this etiology though.

John

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 06:04 PM

I like Kat's idea.

If abortion is illegal, we should also make vasectomies illegal.

Why stop there. Perhaps we should bring back castration.

That would be easy enough. When a child is born illegitimately, we test the DNA and then we castrate the father of the child so that it never happens again.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 06:43 PM

sorry, dianavan...that might be sweet revenge and a moral victory, *grin*...but no practial results, I'm afraid. Like sweeping the waves off the beach.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 07:26 PM

"That would be easy enough. When a child is born illegitimately, we test the DNA and then we castrate the father of the child so that it never happens again."

And also forced sterilization of the female who got pregnant. That would make it unlikely that either party would reoffend. If you are going to hate, hate equally.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 08:11 PM

Those who speak flippantly of involuntary sterilization as a "social improvement" tool may not be aware that not very long ago it was fairly commonly used, in many states in the US and in a fair number of other countries.

It was used against persons incarcerated for "sex crimes" on the premise that it would "cure them of their urges." It was fairly often applied to persons confined for crimes having nothing to do with sex, solely if they were "unruly in confinement," on the premise that it would make them, especially but not exclusively the males, "more tractable." It was not too unusual for this procedure to be applied to persons in short term confinement for relatively petty crimes. It was fairly widely used on persons confined as "mentally deviant," "mentally ill, or simply "feeble minded," occasionally on half-baked theories purporting that it would cure them of their "mental problems," but often just "to keep them out of trouble."

In most places, a court order was nominally required, but it was often just a "rubber-stamp" process for anyone for whom the warden or chief admistrator filled out the form. There often was no formal "hearing," much less a trial. Final decisions were sometimes made by an appointed committee, and in some cases the chief administrator or the "medical director" of a confinement facility alone could decide to do it to someone on his/her own sole authority.

The disappearance of the last state laws permitting (or requiring) this "treatment" came at about the same time that the most brutal of the segregation laws began to fall by order of the Federal Courts, so for some of us elders it's a fairly recent thing.

There are still a fair number of people who think it was a good idea because the "Old Testament says that drastic punishments are proper."

There are still a fair number of people alive who's parents taught them that it was an appropriate "scientific treatment" based on the pseudo-scientific theories of the period when the practice was widespread.

At least there are few direct descendants of the victims to complain.

Involuntary lobotomy and forced electroshock treatments were common in the same recent era, although probably less frequently than sterilization.

John

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 08:14 PM

A good reminder, John. Of course, you must know I was being ironic.:-)

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 08:19 PM

kat -

I could see the irony quite clearly, but in fact there seem to be few people even aware that this ever happened.

It did.

It could.

John

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 08:21 PM

"Those who speak flippantly of involuntary sterilization as a "social improvement" tool may not be aware that not very long ago it was fairly commonly used, in many states in the US and in a fair number of other countries."

It was done legally in Alberta until 1972. I will say that again: 1972. Practised on mental health patients. Bloody barbaric.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 08:29 PM

"Forced sterilization of mental patients
Edmonton, Alberta
March 21, 1928
"...the patient may safely be discharged if the danger of procreation with its attendant risk of multiplication of the evil by transmission of the disability to the progeny were eliminated, the board may direct ...sexual sterilization of the inmate..."

Alberta passes the Sexual Sterilization Act. It provides for the forced sterilization of inmates in mental hospitals.

Similar laws are enacted in other provinces, such as British Columbia.

Want To Know More?
See:
Sexual Sterilization Act, S.A. 1928, c.37.

Did you know?
Sterilization of the "feeble-minded" is supported by leading women's rights figures such as Emily Murphy and Nellie McClung.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 08:31 PM

Alberta apologizes for forced sterilization
WebPosted Tue Nov 2 18:04:09 1999 (CBC Radio)

EDMONTON - The government of Alberta has apologized for one of the darker chapters in
the province's history: forced sterilization of more than 2,800 people.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 08:33 PM

Sorry for no site names. Easily found with a google of

forced sterilization, alberta

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:09 AM

Thanks, John. I thought it was more widely known, now. It is heinous that it ever happened and that it could, indeed, happen, again.

Just as heinous, imo, is that in 1970, under 21 year olds could not get contraception without their parents' permission and married women still had to get their husband's okay for an abortion, no matter what kind of asshole they were married to. I had a girlfriend whose new husband couldnt' tolerate the idea of a baby right after marriage and through a failure of birth control they were using. He was a very well-educated man who forced her to submit to an abortion. (Happy to say, I helped her divorce the bastard years later.)

The government has no business being in anyone's personal business in these ways. They are all heinous.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Cluin
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:16 AM

Why do people get so fucked up about sex?

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: jacqui.c
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 07:36 AM

Cluin

Culture, religion.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 08:02 AM

Forced sterilisation of "the feeble-minded" and "moral delinquents" and so forth wasn't a hangover from ancient days, it was hailed in its time as the up-to-date progressive thing to do. When Hitler took it up and extended it, it was as a way of being modern and forward-looking and all that. He got some good press for it too. It was seen by some people who didn't like him in general as being a silver lining in his dark cloud, in the same was as the building of the autobahns.

The mind-set that is comfortable about abortion as the best solution where there's a chance a child might be disabled isn't a million miles away from that.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: MaineDog
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 08:50 AM

No, its the other way around. People who are messed up about sex go into fundamentalism in order to spread their misery around, try to turn their disability into an advantage.
MD

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:27 AM

KatLaughing-   You look at this issue at 100% from the side of the woman.   You do not consider the man or more importantly the baby.   The majority of the people in this country believe that the baby has rights- as does the mother. If left to a national vote abortions would probably be made illegal throughout the country.    When you ignore the baby in these discussions, you are not addressing the issue with any coherent thought.

To continue your thought for Pro Lifers- if the baby exists at the time of conception- shoud all woman who have miscarriages be charged with manslaghter?   Especially if they are overweight, have smoked cigarettes, or drank alcohol?

Finally- the concept that woman can't afford to move to a state or live in a state of their choice is rubbish.   You must not have noticed that people move all the time.    Millions and millions of people move each year.   People in the northeast are moving the the south and southwest.    People in California are moving to Arizona and New Mexico.   An African American speaker in Detroit a few weeks ago stated how African Americans moved to Detroit to work in the auto industry. Today, Detroit is laying off people and Toyota and Saturn are building plants in the South.   His contentions is that African Americans should move to where the jobs are rather than live in welfare where the jobs aren't.   There is nothing stopping anyone from moving to a place that more suits their values or jobs or weather.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: kendall
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:42 AM

It's all been said, so all I can add is:
"The Devil loves an unwanted child." (Henry Kranz)

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:45 AM

LarryK. you demonstrate the epitome of people who do not understand what women face, esp. women of poverty. How could you? You are male and thus can never get pregnant. That, from the start, imo, makes it wrong and impossible for you to pass judgement and laws concerning a woman's right to choose.

Having been a teenage mom, I can assure you I have been through all of the aspects of considering the father in such circumstances AND the baby. With three children, I find it highly presumptious of you to assume anything about me and where I am coming from, except what I have plainly stated.

Let me be even more clear: YOU, nor anyone else, has any rights to govern MY body. I do not believe a fetus is a "being" at conception. Many people agree with me. YOU cite broad and sweeping statistics, with no citations, plus stats can be manipulated by both sides to suit their needs.

As to people living in poverty moving? What world do you live in? Have you read some of the threads, lately, by Mudcatters who are working in the trenches with poor people? Do you realise what a move costs and how much it costs to set up house in another area, utility deposits, first, last and security deposits for rent, moving expenses, etc. esp. when one does NOT have a job, nor skills to make anything more than minimum wage? Do you understand that most jobs available to people without much training, esp. stay-at-home mothers who've not been out in the job market, are service jobs with low wages and usually no benefits?

Your views and suggestions are completley unrealistic and seem to be driven by emotional reactions rather than any understanding of your fellow human beings.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,donuel
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:45 AM

Did you hear that the Republicans in South Dakota have cornered the coat hanger market?

Dear Mudcatters: Is this too vile to be illustrated as a cartoon?

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:06 AM

Some time back someone posted this
The only people who are "prolife" are,
1. Men
2. Women past child bearing age
3. Women who are too ugly to get laid.
Is there any truth to this?

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:18 AM

Not everything wrong is a matter for lawcourts. I think most women who lose a baby and put it down to the fact that they had drank and smoked heavily during pregnancy would recognise that they had been wrong to do so.

There seems to be a tendency to oversimplify - if something's legal, that means it's right; if something's wrong, it ought to be illegal. But that's essentially fundamentalist thinking, at home only in set-ups like the Taliban's Afghanistan or John Calvin's Geneva. I think we have to muddle along in a world where often enough bad things are going to be legal and some good things are going to be illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,a regular 'catter.
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:18 AM

I am a regular catter who has signed out to post this.

About a year ago, my partner was very concerned that she was pregnant, despite us both being very careful, and that she would have to have an abortion. This meant we both had to think very carefully about this.

The whole situation re-enforced the view that I hold, that any decision on abortion can only be made by the Woman concerned. If she wishes to tell her partner, family, doctor or preist, that is her right, but they are not the ones who will have to carry the baby, and should not be able to impose their views un-invited.

In something so personal, unless you are trusted and respected by the Woman, what you think should have no relevance whatsoever.