BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?

Subject: BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Nov 02 - 06:50 PM

While personally having anti-abortion feelings I have equally ProChice views but it looks as if the Repubs have Wade vrs Roe in their sights for the next term.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives killed a popular *Boss Hog* bill exempting credit card companies from the list of creditors who get written off from bankruptcy. Well, seems the reason that it was rejected is because of a provision that did not give folks who damage abortion clinics any bankruptcy protections for the damages.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Let me get this right, Herbie. You're telling me that not only do you want to wait for a bill that preditory lenders but also folks who feel its their right to damage other folks stuff because theymdon't agree with the other folks?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Does that mean if I don't like the fact that your book store sells the Koran then I can just run my pickup truck thru your book store and then drive right over to my local bankruptcy attorney to file the papers.

Something very wrong with this picture, thank you.

Welcome to George Bush's America...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?
From: Nathan in Texas
Date: 16 Nov 02 - 08:40 PM

"folks who damage abortion clinics"?!! Where in the world did that come from? The bill sought to eliminate freedom of speech for those who do not toe the line of current political correctness regarding abortion.

Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., stated it clearly:
"The issue before us is not abortion and the issue before us is not bankruptcy; the issue before us today is very important — it is the constitutional right of free speech and peaceful protest,"

Today it's the abortion protestors who being singled out as not deserving the rights and protections of the Constitution. If we accept this, how long before all unpopular protest is eliminated?

It seems that free speech, peaceful protest, and non-violent civil disobedience is strongly supported by liberals unless it's for a conservative cause.

Subject: RE: BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?
From: GUEST,too chicken to sign it
Date: 16 Nov 02 - 09:26 PM

It hurts my heart to hear the phrase "I'm personally anti-abortion" always followed by some version of "but I can't impose my views on others" (I know that's not precisely what Bobert said -- I'm just taking the occasion. Bobert's posts are the record of a decent and thinking person). I'm a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party, the ACLU and Amnesty International (actually, while they don't precisely have membership, they do issue cards. Strange). But the right to life is a human rights issue, and how in hell the killing of inconvenient people came to be the "progressive" position is a mystery to me. Euthanasia, assisted suicide, abortion, have otherwise decent people talking like Nazis about whose life is worth living, and thinking like republicans about maximizing the individual's economic options. I work at a university, and there the conventional wisdom does not acknowledge that there's a legitimate debate. But I can't take a "who are we to judge?" attitude anymore than I believe I could have done so with regard to slavery -- the last time this country was so polarized.

It's very, very unlikely that any adult will change her/his mind about abortion, and I'm not trying. But I am suggesting that the natural home of pro-choice is the Republican party (where maybe 30% are actively pro-choice, and a bunch more ride the fence, allowing the party to win single-issue voters by talking the talk, and hang onto the rest by consistently refusing to actually do anything). For Republicans, "pro-life" is just code for the traditional repression of women, as evidenced by any number of pro-death policies they pursue vigorously. We as a country (mostly pro-life) put up with it, we tell ourselves, because we hsitate to impose our view on others (SINCE WHEN?), but really because we want that option when we ourselves get into a tight spot.

Subject: RE: BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Nov 02 - 09:51 PM

GUEST, too chicken to sign in:

Hey, my views on abortion are less formed by an absolute feeling of the "right to life" then the realities of the back room abortions that were performed in the 50's and early 60's. The folks of the middle and upper classes had no problems but the less fortunate dies in back rooms of gas stations and beauty parlors.

I would rather see a *real* attempt to teach safe sex and make birth control available without restirction to anyone who wants it without parental disclosures.

So, yeah, I am torn and I don't think I'm alone in this. There are alot of us who are against capital punishment for the *sanctity of life* issues who reluctantly favor a woman's right to choose over the alternatives.

But this issue on the table with the bakrupcty legislation is about allowing vigilantes to express their views with no recourse for their actions. If I choose to lay down in front of a police car during a demonstartion, I accept the consequences of my actions. So should people who think they have a right to destroy others property. If we don't stand firm here, then where?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 16 Nov 02 - 10:12 PM

Dear Guest, too chicken:

"Inconvenient" seems to me a strange way to describe the products of rape or incest. "People" seems like a strange way to describe a few thousand cells. While I dissagree utterly with your conclosions, your ernestness is impressive. But misplaced.

Subject: RE: BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 02 - 10:35 PM

Only MEN signing in on this thread?


Hmmmm, interesting, Who REALLY want to have fetus-killing-rights?

Subject: RE: BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?
From: Peg
Date: 16 Nov 02 - 10:40 PM

How many pro-choice activists have actually killed anyone?

Whereas pro-life (ironic term that) activists have committed murder a number of times. For example, doctor and abortion provider Bernard Slepian got shot and killed on my birthday, in his own kitchen, by a sniper who was also a radical pro-life activist.

Freedom of speech ends when it interferes with another human being's (one who has been walking around the earth for a while already) right to be alive.

I used to live up the street from the Planned Parenthood at 1031 Beacon in Brookline. It was my only source of health care for several years. I watched it turn into a fortress of guards and metal detectors. Now it's an empty apartment no one want to live in. Don't talk to me about freedom of speech.

Subject: RE: BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 16 Nov 02 - 10:43 PM

If Roe v Wade was overturned, it would be a tremendous shot in the arm for the airline industry. Thousands of U.S. women a day would be buying round-trip tickets to Mexico to get the abortions that they're going to get anyway regardless of whether or not they're legal in the U.S. Maybe travel agents could even sell package deals - a little dining, a little dancing, an abortion, a little swimming....

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?
From: GUEST,too chicken to sign in
Date: 16 Nov 02 - 10:51 PM

Like anybody, I had four greatgrandmothers. Two of them died in illegal abortions. Their children spoke of the events, indeed, at the very time of the great Roe v. Wade debate, and certainly wished their mothers had lived. But they themselves remained anti-abortion. For both Bobert and Misophist, I am familiar with the reasons you cite, and I do acknowledge, they're compelling -- as well as provocative, but I'll refrain from responding. I know you'd be just as familiar with the counters I'd offer, and I'd anticipate your further rebuttals with further arguments you've heard before. I don't want to bore you, nor do I see any much hope for changing of minds on either side.

There's something about this issue that's intractable, like no other I can think of. Maybe it's because this is the one place where the crucial legal idea of individual responsibility is fogged up by the fact that at some point (when that point comes, we can't agree) a second person enters. Maybe because it's tangled with so many other issues. Maybe, and I really do think the current situation resembles the debate over slavery, because we can see that no real compromise is possible. Half of us will be restricted by moral/philosophical determinations not our own, or half of us will have to abide -- and to some extent be complicit in -- what we regard as an atrocity.


But I'll stick to my feeling that there's something deeply inconsistent with the party that claims to be the voice of the voiceless erring on the side of those with voices. And committing itself so wholeheartedly to the extinction of debate, of any searching discussion, even of its own consistency. On this issue, and as far as I can see, on this issue alone, there's an uncharacteristic intolerance of lawful, peaceful protest, of open debate. Something quite horrible has become perfectly normal, and it's disloyal or in bad taste to raise questions about it.

Subject: RE: BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?
From:
Date: 16 Nov 02 - 11:19 PM

In a Rhetoric class, we learned to call this situation an "aporia": it's been talked about from every possible direction and perspective, but since it is important to both sides, the "agree to disagree" solution won't work. In fact, it's so important that the usual democratic/majoritarian acceptance of defeat on this point for the sake of the polity seems a little shaky. The outcome of aporia will typically be what's been called instituional violence (one side imposes its will on the other) or overt violence. I think some of what "chicken" sees as hostility to free speech just represents an awareness on the part of government of how potentially explosive the situation is. It's not inconcievable that these people could see their moral mission overriding the value of citizenship. Yeah, it does have some of the dynamics of the slavery debate.

Subject: RE: BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 02 - 11:27 PM

Your great-mother's deaths were God's retribution for the lives they themselves were about to take.

If a ground is sterile - there is no need for it to continue taking up resources.

Subject: RE: BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Nov 02 - 11:39 PM

This post was originally more about a government's tacit apprroval of "vigilante rule* and less about abortion.

Any chance of gettin' anyone to respnd to those concerns?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?
From:
Date: 17 Nov 02 - 12:47 AM

Well, you're my only source of info on this proviso, but doesn't it seem odd that this particular act should be singled out for non-protection? I mean, damaging RHS facilties is a crime, and maybe you want to exclude the victims of crimes from the list of people you can screw by declaring bankruptcy. Seems reasonable to me. I could also see excluding victims of hate crimes or political crimes; that's a message there'd be some consensus about sending. But it does seem strange to me to single out crimes motivated by one particular political viewpoint. I'm guessing there's some grandstanding and political theater here -- someone offering a pretty clearly unconstitutional amendment to send signals about his position at pretty low cost.

Adam

Subject: RE: BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 17 Nov 02 - 01:39 AM

Well, Bobert ole buddy, I'ze gonna have ta disagree with ya a little on the Boss Hog aspect of that bankruptcy reform bill. From what I gather, when someone declares bankruptcy, the court assigns the creditors priority as to who will be paid what. The credit card companies have always been put at the tail-end of the line and often have to write off entire credit card balances. Now, if someone has to file for bankruptcy because of medical bills or losing a job or something like that it's one thing.   But if they've just gotten their ass in a financial sling and are using bankruptcy as a way to escape paying back a debt, that's something else. Personally, I don't like the fact that a portion of every check I send to VISA goes toward paying off debts that some other joker reneged on.

Now, on to the real issue at hand... From what I gather, some pols got the brilliant idea to score points with the right-to-lifers by sticking a clause in the bankruptcy reform bill that would give special consideration in cases where a major factor contributing to the bankruptcy is that one has been compelled to pay reparations, fines or court costs stemming from pro-life protest activities. I heard that it's not so much reparations for physical damage done to facilities that's the issue (though that's the one that gets the press) as it is that people who repeatedly get arrested during protests have incurred more in fines and court costs than they can pay and still have money left to pay their bills. I have always been a great supporter of non-violent civil disobedience and the pro-life folks certainly have the right to step over the line the law prescribes as long as they are willing to pay the price. However, to expect other people to have to pick up the tab for them is ludicrous, ridiculous and just plain wrong.

Fortunately, it appears that at least a few of the folks in Washington know bullshit when they see it and the bill got tossed. Too bad that what could have been a fair bill got hijacked by some jerks looking to curry favor and had to be shot down.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?
From:
Date: 17 Nov 02 - 02:11 AM

Hmm, seems I understood the bill just about exactly bassackwards, as I follow BWL's message. But it was only the direction I got wrong -- it's showboating.

Adam

Subject: RE: BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 17 Nov 02 - 02:16 AM

If there is an Anti-Christ his name is John Ashcroft.

The future freedoms that will remain to us are in the hands of the Attorney General and the Congress and Senate of the United States. Talk to your Representatives and try and stop the Homeland Security BIll as written.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 17 Nov 02 - 03:49 AM

Guest adavis - Absolutely NO guarantee I don't have it ass-backwards. Just going by what I hear on NPR recently but I wasn't paying real close attention. I tried to find an article on the net for clarification but it's yesterday's news and not easy to find anything on.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Nov 02 - 06:41 AM

There is an AP article from last Friday HERE which may help to clarify things.

Don, you are absolutely right about the Homeland Security bill.

Subject: RE: BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?
From: kendall
Date: 17 Nov 02 - 09:29 AM

Pro life = Anti choice

Subject: RE: BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 17 Nov 02 - 09:56 AM

The pro-life/pro-choice football will be kicked back and fort forever. As long as there is the power to over turn existing legislation.

I find myself ina bad spot here. I am strongly Pro Choice but I am also strongly constitutional. If Roe v Wade falls then we gather our forces and get it back. The Republican party did well this time because they played the game better than the Democrats for the first time since Nixon.

Be afraid of the coat tails that Bush has used to get where he is. Bush is a bit of a Loon and he has some dangerous power. BUt be aware of Ashcroft and his religious affiliates who are more concerned with personal greed than God.

Jesus wanted nothing to do with government. Why do these people so easily forget that "Render unto Ceasar..." line when they are throwing about there Scripture.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: ProChoice Next to Fall?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 17 Nov 02 - 10:23 AM

Thanks for the link to the article, Kat. I did have it backwards in that I had thought that the pro-life contingent was trying to get an exemption when, in fact, the pro-choice contingent was trying to be sure there was no exemption. Thus, the bill was shot down by fire from the right instead of fire from the left.

Bruce