BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?

Subject: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 12:24 PM

Well, with Bush owning the Supreme Court, 5 to 4, and Affirmative Action in the chopping block, what's next? I'm predicting Reo v. Wade myself. Yep, the Rhenquist/Thomas/O'conner/Kennedy/Scalia majority is a right wing "Dream Team".

Oh, how many hard fought victories for progressives over the last 40 years and so little time to overturn them! But, rest assured, knowing that thye Bush regime will do it's darndest to get to each and every one of them. And you can take that to the bank.

Stevens/Ginsberg/Souter/Breyer will put up the good fight but it won't change the 5-4's a bit.

5-4! Get used to hearing it!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 01:44 PM

Think positive, Bobert! Even in extremely conservative Wyoming, the overwhelming majority always has voted to preserve a woman's right to choose.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 03:07 PM

I take it back, Bobert. I just heard the son-of-a-bitch claim that the right to life for a foetus is part of the Constitution. Anyone read Handmaid's Tale, lately?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: TIA
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 03:37 PM

Scary book for a man with three young daughters...even scarier as it converges with real life.

What is our dear leader thinking...he's gutting family planning and pregnancy prevention worldwide. It's as if he and his boys want to outlaw abortion so that unwanted children will be a deterent to sex. (Don't tell me it's about the sanctity of human life -- look at the rest of his agenda!) How f'in scary and inhuman is it to use children as a punishment?!?! Jesus would vomit if he met our self-proclaimed christian leaders.

Well, musn't be too harsh. Maybe it's not about punishing women and children. Maybe it's only about pandering and re-election and retaining power. In that case I feel a lot better. Wretch..wrrretch, puuuuuke, cough, cough, spit, cough. Okay, now I really do feel a lot better.

BTW, don't mean to imply that I'm Jesus. Not even close....

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 04:02 PM

Kat: It's purdy much a slam dunk for Bush. Everywhere one looks where a vote determines the direction of the country, Bush owns. I thyink we should be looking at Affirmative Action and Roe v. Wade as *gone, gone, gone.*

Family leave will go 'cause it is an inconvience to Boss Hog. Miranda will be next as if it even matters now that folks can be held without charges, without lawyers and be shipped off to military jails. Like who ios ever going to know if the person who has been disappered had his right read to him before being wisked off into the Ridge/Ashcroft "Black Hole"?

Hey, Brown v. Board of Education would go nicely with AA, don't ya' think?

TIA: I'm with you. No, I am not Jesus either but I know Him purdy danged well. Yeah, if ya' think he had His hand's full the last time around, whew, think about today. First of all, he would have most certainly been arrested this pasr weekend in D.C. and then when He went to court the following morning for arraignment and tried his lines on those who man the system, he'd be sitting in a D.C. jail as we speak, fir sure...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: John Hardly
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 04:07 PM

It couldn't matter less. If RvW was overruled tomorrow there isn't a State in the Union that would make abortion illegal. It (making it illegal) would be unpopular, misunderstood and finacially less than expedient.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: NicoleC
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 04:31 PM

It's not about abortion, it's about reproductive choice, or rather, taking that choice away from women.

These would be the same conservatives that fight tooth and nail any legislation to track down deadbeat dads. In fact, they often try to insist that there's no such thing as a deadbeat dad, saying "only" 12% of women with absent father's don't receive child support. Only 12%!? In short -- all the responsibility for women, all the choice for men.

Teenage abortion rates have dropped dramatically as more Sex Ed programs have included information on preventative measures like condoms. But Bush is against that, too. He's trying to appoint a doctor to a key FDA position on women's health who refuses to prescribe birth control. Hell, Bush is against "safe birthing" kits for third world countries that include such radical life-savings items as a clean plastic sheet to give birth on and a sterile razor blade to cut the umbilical cord to prevent infection. Doesn't sound very pro-life to me.

If anti-abortion crusaders were genuinely concerned about the sanctity of life, they would be targetting fertility treatments like artificial insemination. No one pickets outside of fertility clinics or assassinates fertility doctors. You see, apparently, it's okay to kill 20-30 fetuses in the process of one woman choosing to have a child. That's not the same, right? What hypocrasy!

At least the Catholic Church sends a uniform message (it opposes both on the same ethical grounds), but you won't find that among most of the anti-abortion advocates.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: TIA
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 04:46 PM

I must agree but disagree John Hardly -

Agree that they won't outright make it illegal because that would be unpopular with too many people. What are the numbers..?...? those (admittedly spinnable) polls have always shown thAt roughly 70% of Americans think abortion should be kept legal.

But, states will impose so many seemingly innocuous restrictions and hoops to jump through that they will effectively eliminate access to abortion for all except...(wait for it)...the wealthy!

Ahhh that's the ticket. Can't come right out and ban it or the poor working sods would see through all the stealth, and the rich wouldn't make the big campaign contributions that are needed to fund the TV commercials that keep us sods from seeing through the stealth.

See, the rich don't mind restrictions, but they wouldn't stand for outright ban. As Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe put it - people generally support a total ban on abortion as long as there are three exceptions: 1) life or health of the mother, 2) rape and incest, and 3) ME.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: TIA
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 05:50 PM

Oh yeah... and remember, the states with the most restrictive laws on abortion spend the least on women's and children's services. It's all about making sure the angry white men maintain control over their pretty little women. I'm still looking for evidence of true altruism from the pro-lifers.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: GUEST,guest mike
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 06:00 PM

There will always be women who kill their unborn children, so their sex life will not be inconvenienced. After all, that's what it's all about. There is always a right to choose not to have sex if you don't want a child. If you do it anyway and get pregnant, you have made your choice. Acccept your responsibility for the choice you make. Taking another's life for your convenience is not acceptable.

There will always be mass murdererss, serial murderers, rapists, cannibals, torturers, and all the other deviates.

Why expect the killers of unborn children to go away? They, along with the other deviates, can always rationalize their behavior!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 06:04 PM

You don't stop abortion by making it illegal in a country where people think it's right, and you don't stop them thinking it's right by making it illegal either.

Myself I see abortion along with the death penalty and preparing for and making war as all part of the same thing, symptoms of a society that's taken the wrong turning.

Running in two directions at once is a sure way to stay in the same place.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: mg
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 06:13 PM

I'm pretty much going to stay out of this except to respond to the men have all the choices argument...they don't have the choice as to whether their own babies live or die. Not much of a choice. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Uncle Jaque
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 06:22 PM

Gosh, we can hope so, can't we?

Come on now; over 44 Million unborn babies cut to shreds, poisoned, suctioned out and flushed down the toilet since R.v.W. ... and that's NOT ENOUGH for you? And you hold yourselves up as the champions of "Compassion"?

Give me a bloody break, eh?

You "Progressives" might want to stock up on kleenex, Komrades; it's apt to be a hard year for you "free-love and kill-the-consequences" Libbies. With all due respect to otherwise fine Musicians and dandy people, the current resurgence of American awareness of the Sanctity of Human Life and Common Sense is long overdue, in my humble opinion.

And don't insult what limited intelligence I might claim with newspeak goobledygook about "Choice"; Do women get to "choose" to pack a 9mm automatic around the park in most American cities to disuade your misunderstood welfare and dope-sucking darlings from raping and perhaps murdering her? Don't think so.

Does she have any "choice" as to where she sends her children to be educated in a manner consistant with her Family traditions or religious convictions when she is not wealthy enogh to pay both living expenses, taxes, and tuition to a competent Private School?
Off they go to your Socialist Government forced monopoly PC NEA indoctrination centers, at the point of a Government gun if need be.

Choice, Hell; kindly cut the BS and buck up, Komrades. Now you know how WE felt for the last 8 years of your illustrious Klinton Syndicate.

Get used to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Hippie Chick
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 06:23 PM

Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood is pretty scary. It's 1984 updated for the new Millenium.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: TIA
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 06:50 PM

Let's not pretend that all abortions are about free love without consequences. There may be some, and they are reprehensible. Because of those, do you really want to ban an option for women (and men) who may be in dire circumstances? (NOT simply inconvenient circumstances).

In my opinion, it's a three question issue:

1) Can you think of any circumstances, ever, where an abortion might be warranted?

If "no", I respect your position, and will not argue with your principled and consistent stand as a non-hypocritical pro-life advocate.

If "yes", proceed to question 2.

2) If a woman finds herself in one of the dire circumstances you imagined in response to question 1, should she be required to explain her dire circumstances to a judge or other officer of the law, and be forced to live with that officer's decision as to whether the circumstances were truly dire enough?

If "no", you are pro-choice.

If "yes", proceed to question 3.

3) Are you comfortable with committing yourself today and forever more to placing any potential future decisions regarding the health of your daugther, grandaughter, wife, mother, or other loved female in the hands of an officer of the law (i.e. the government)?

Number 3 is the kicker ain't it? Think about it and be honest. It's easy to dismiss other peoples concerns as frivolous. But when it really affects you and your family, do you really want to have no say in the matter? Do you want an uninterested bureaucrat holding all the power? Anyone ever dealt with the IRS, or the INS, or an HMO? They tend to not give a shit about your loved ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: NicoleC
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 06:58 PM

I totally agree, Kevin. Of course, no one will believe us. Aanyone who isn't for sending abortion back to back alleys and coat hangers must support baby killing, right?

Abortion is a sad product of modern society, but it is not new. The "birth control" methods of the past few thousand years usually involved neglecting a baby until it starved to death or placing it out for the elements to kill -- actions often performed by mothers who willed themselves into believing the baby was "just sickly" or "wouldn't eat" instead of facing the truth. (Anthropology has more documentation on this than almsot any other women's issue.) Without safe and reliable pregnancy prevention, many women in the world have to face the decision to let one new child die, or have all her children die because there isn't enough food to feed them all. Let's not forget the thousands of years of fathers who also choose to kill their children for the same reasons, or simply because they were an unwanted female child.

It's so easy for men to say that a woman has the "choice" not to have sex, but quite frankly, this is often not true, and particularly in places without economic parity -- which is almost everywhere. A woman who says no to her husband may find herself without economic support for any of her children or forced into sex anyway, and possibly both. A pregnant woman can lose her job and pregnancy leave is an enormous financial strain. Nor is there affordable daycare. And the US has some of the worst infant mortality and maternal mortality rates in the industrialized world -- yet, healthcare is denied to all but those who can afford it. Most HMOs no longer cover birth control prescriptions and devices, and let me tell you, they aren't cheap! Anyone priced the cost of prenatal care lately?

In some places a woman is culturally or religiously not even permitted to say no -- and you can start by looking at the Christian Church. One of the reasons AIDS has spread so rapidly in Africa is because women are simply not in any position to dictate anything about sex.

Unmarried women? Of course, it's the WOMAN'S fault for having sex! Men can also choose not to have sex, yet they are never held responsible, are they?

The only solution is safe, effective, and universally available birth control, that a woman can take and hide without her husband's knowledge, if necessary. Those with religious aversions to birth control don't have to take it.

Then -- and only then -- can there be a reasonable discussion about whether or not there is a "choice."

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: NicoleC
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 07:09 PM

BTW, Jaque, how do you feel about stem cell research? Or fertility treatments? Or War with Iraq? Death penalty? Taking a life in self-defense?

Just curious where you stand, if you are going to claim the moral high ground on the "Sanctity of Life."

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 07:26 PM

Fighting for choice implies fighting against all the things in society that push women into having abortions because they feel they haven't the choice not to.

And fighting for life means fighting against those very same things.

Anybody who thinks that "the right to choose" begins and ends with abortion is as big a hypocrite as those who think that "the right to life" begins and ends with making abortion illegal.

And my experience is that there are a lot if people on both sides in this argument who in fact do not go in for that kind of hypocrisy, and they need to recognise that they are up against some common enemies, who pretend to be their friends.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 07:29 PM

Well, what if in order to get an abortion, the father would have to volunteer to be sterilized first? Hmmmmmm? Just thinkin'.

Ahhhh, as fir the two pro-lifers who have posted. What are your feelings on:

    1. The upcoming attack on Iraq by the US.

    2. Capital punishment.

Just curious...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: michaelr
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 08:34 PM

Folks, no point in getting into an argument with Uncle J; he's obviously a raving right-winger. Don't get him started on Iraq etc!

More interesting is the question whether - if the Supreme Court actually does overturn Roe v. Wade - states will have the option of keeping abortion legal. Does federal law not supercede?

Here's a song I wrote on the subject years ago.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 08:55 PM

Well, you know where I stand on those. Pro-life.

But I'd be a bit doubtful whether that is really an appropriate label for some people who claim it.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 09:04 PM

The court should have no say in the issue...Any question of this nature, where people's unprovable **beliefs** are at issue should be settled by allowing people to do as THEY believe....it should not become a matter of court votes by whichever side is in power every few years!!!

If you don't like contraception...or abortion....don't do it! But don't interfere in the rights of others to their own opinions.

(No, it is NOT the 'same as' murder) and yes, there ARE grey areas, but these should be decided by the parents involved, their doctor, and their conscience. This is how it WILL be done anyway; it is just a matter of whether it is done safely, or in back rooms like it used to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 09:36 PM

What, Bill, and not let those folks who think that government is too intrusive, get behind it and push for all their worth in making the governemnt more intrusive? Blasphomy, I say.

Jus' funnin, my friend.

(And don't worry about these two beautiful stumps I'm savin' fir ya. They're safe and waiting your artist touch...)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: John Hardly
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 09:49 PM

TIA,

I disagree that it would ever become "only for the wealthy" because that fails to address the main function of abortion.

The reason that abortion will never (again) be illegal is not because Democrats and liberals are for it (regardless of how logical or ill their arguments may be). It is because they are joined by the more elite "Republicans" who feel that it is the only means probable for keeping undesirable populations from growing.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 09:58 PM

Danged, John, I thought that was was *incarceration* was supposed to accomplish?

What ever got into me?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 10:29 PM

Hopefully Bush is now seen to be making to many anti life choices. The cowardly democrats (Sen.s Kennedy & Kerry finally & a few others) are starting to come out & question God George about his discissions, I believe after the recent turn out for the war protests they can now start to feel as if they can come out, without the fear of political suicide & step up to the plate & at least make an attempt to be seen doing the right thing (what took them so long?). Our enviornment is turning into a sewer, our natural resources are being sold off to the highest bidder, insurance companies are dictating our health, wealth & our pursuit of happyiness, drug lords are making the call on who can afford to live & who's poor enough to die, the oil companies are having the final say about war, we rank below some 3rd world (it was 17th just a short while ago) nations on infant mortality, we've just been repremanded by world human rights org, our educational system is in the dump & getting buried each day with more garbage, no one qualifies for social services anymore & the life blood of our country is being sucked out of everybody but the rich who we now support with our recent tax gains, affirmative action cut on M.L.King day, we're on the brink of causing the new 3rd World War by a dictator who's veiwed internationaly as the most dangerous threat to world peace on the planet. So does anyone think they have ANY CHOICES. Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: NicoleC
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 10:42 PM

Michael: not necessarily. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, it would only revert back to state control. To make it illegal at a national level would require a law passed by Congress (and I don't think they'll have the votes any time soon), even so, that law could be challenged for ITS constitutionality.

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate." -- Harry Blackmun, Roe v. Wade, US Supreme Court

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 10:45 PM

Yeah, that kinda sums it up, Barry. Like you, it is amazing just how anti-life some of these pro-lifers seem to be... I aked a couple of 'em about the upcoming war and capital punishment and, hey, they don't want to talk about that.

But these two *men* restrict their prolife values to very difficult decisions made altimately by *women*. Hmmmmmmmm?

Go figure?....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: michaelr
Date: 22 Jan 03 - 11:09 PM

Ah -- thanks, Nicole.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Deda
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 01:18 AM

As I think I said on some earlier thread, I'm ready to move to any state or states that would like to declare this "president" a usurper, and secede. I'm only half in jest. I feel that the nation is so polarized that the two halves will never come together. Politically we don't just disagree, we seem to absolutely hate each other. When Clinton was in office, whom I loved and supported as a political leader in spite of his personal immorality, the people who hated him were virulent, relentless and violent in their attacks on him. I was sick over the impeachment, which I saw as a gross abuse of the impeachment process over basically personal, not national, not even professional failings. I can't stand this administration, and I see Dubya as an elitist, environmentally and politically disastrous panderer to the money-power-huge-corporate class.

I'd like to live in a country that still had some sense of goodness and innocence to it. My daughter feels that it's easier to raise her son as a spiritual and ethical person in war-torn Israel than in the TV-torn, money-corrupted, arrogant empire of Dubya's USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Kaleea
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 02:04 AM

I really remember the coat hangers. I was just a teenager when I was in the ER waiting for a friend after a minor auto accident when the young woman came in. Yes, she died. I can tell you that there are plenty of lawmakers/politicians/leaders/public officials across the country who stood up and argue against abortion, yet have made certain that no one was looking when a young woman was sent to some back street abortion clinic so that he would not be involved in a scandal. But, what we really need to think about is this:
Be very careful about giving the government the power to make your decisions for you. The government which can decide whether or not a woman will have an abortion CAN DECIDE that a woman WILL have an abortion. Do not make the mistake of thinking that this cannot happen. It has been going on for decades in many countries. Do not make the mistake of thinking that our government will always do "the right thing" for the welfare of all of the citizens in this country. "The right thing" is relative. There have been judges who have ordered women to have sterilization surgery. It was once common practice for the Doctors of females who were considered retarded or mentally ill to inform the family/parents that the female should have a hysterectomy around the age of puberty. Many of these people were neither mentally ill nor retarded--often they were blind, deaf, or simply illegitimate. It is obvious that we, the public, do not have access to every bit of information which, by law, is supposed to be public. It is a proven fact that our government officials commonly use their power and position to line their own pockets, and the pockets of those whom they choose. Over and over we have seen examples of officials who are corrupt. When a government has the power to make your decisions for you, they can and they WILL make your decisions for you, and furthermore tell you that it is for your own good, despite your protestations. This is what we need to think about. How many times have we heard, "I am not a crook!" or "I did not have sex with that woman!" and etc. There is one law for the powerful, and a different law for the common man. This is what we MUST remember.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: kendall
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 09:41 AM

40 million aborted pregnancies. "The devil loves an unwanted child."

Seems to me that religeous beliefs play a big role here. Personally, I believe that the important part of a human is the soul, the spirit, the eternal life force; not that few pounds of flesh we call a body. You can not kill the soul, and, when an abortion is performed, that soul simply goes elsewhere to incarnate. That which is important is not lost.
Ok, now, those of you who have been steeped in traditional religeous dogma, prove me wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 10:40 AM

Absolutely, Kendall, well said!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 10:45 AM

Kaleea:

What a thoughtful post and I thank your for it.

Yes, I find it most interesting that the folks who parrot the Republican party line of too much government are the first top line up behind more and more and more governemnt. I heard a piece on Pacifica radio on the work this morning that Bush has now appointed a fundamentalist to the AIDS Commission who thinks that homosexuals need to br trained to be heterosexual?!?... Now if that doesn't tkae the cake. Yeah, we can't have sex education in the public schools but we can sure enough round up gay folks for "retraining"??? Hmmmmm,? Am I missing something here, or what...

Pro-lifers who have posted to this thread:

Still waiting on your opinions of attacking Iraq and killing thousands of innocent people and on the death penalty.... Still waiting.... Still waiting... Stiil..........

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 10:58 AM

You've had my view Bobert. People who are into killing aren't pro-lifers in any meaningful sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Beccy
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 11:13 AM

ProChoice-ers out there I'd like to ask you a question. If it is okay to abort a baby (reason is unimportant, here) at what point does it stop being okay? Is it acceptable to abort at 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 16 weeks, 24 weeks, 36 weeks? How about after the baby is born? Is it okay to kill it then if it's unwanted? What reasons are acceptable? Am I the only one who think Peter Singer is creepy as heck?

I've heard people bandy about the "killing in self-defense" argument. We have all heard of situations where a killing has occured in self-defense. Most people understand that it occurs occasionally. Do you suggest that because killing in self-defense is legal, that all killing should be legal? I don't believe you think that any more than I do.

You suggest there is a disconnect between someone who is against abortion and but will not punish someone who killed in self-defense. I would suggest that there is a disconnect if you support elective abortion and are against the potential war in Iraq.

BOBERT... I'm pro-life, anti-death penalty, and hoping there is no need for a war in Iraq.   One other thing, though... you said,

"Yeah, we can't have sex education in the public schools but we can sure enough round up gay folks for "retraining"??? Hmmmmm,? Am I missing something here, or what..."

What in heckfire are you talking about? Where did that come from?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 11:21 AM

Good on you, Beccy. I respect your consistency. Really.

The "rounding up" remarks was related to the report that I heard about the fundamentalist whop mBush has appointed to the IDS commission who believes that homosexuals need to be trained to be heterosexual. The second part of the comment was in reference to the traditional conservative view point of leaving sex education up to parents and keeping it out of the schools. I'm not saying it is not in the schools, mind you, just that it is not there because of the Repubs lobbying for it to be there.

So that's "what the heckfire (I'm) talking about.

Now if you want the full details on this appointee, I 'll have to get them to you tomorrow when Pacifica will have today's on their web site.

Stay warm...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Beccy
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 11:26 AM

Buh-Ohb, ert...
Question- Did he actually say, "Homosexuals need to be trained to be heterosexual" or did he express support for the psychological theory that homosexuals CAN be trained to be heterosexual?

It's 4 degrees here... STAY WARM?!?!?!?!? Pray for my doggie (or think good thoughts to those of you not of a praying persuasion...) He's in a bad way and may not be long for this world. He's an old one named "Arfus". Not much to look at, but we love him.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 11:35 AM

Yo Arfus:

Wuff, wuff, there bro. Hey, Iz one of dem prayers and seein' as i like doggies (and kitties, and birds, and fish and turtles and...) Iz gonna say a little prayer fir you, feller. Poor little guy, you come on over here and let yer ol' Uncle Bobert scratch ya behind yer ears... Good doggie, Goooooood little Arfeeeee....

Now don't that feel real good. Feels good to me to.

Ahhh, now go tell Mommie that I'll have to read the entire text tomorrow to get the wording straight but that's purdy much what the report said today...

Good doggie...

Wuff.

Uncle Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 11:53 AM

There are probably more of us consistent pro-lifers around than most people think, because we are not the most vocal of anti abortion people. We don't harass people outside clinics and we don't necessarily believe that making it illegal will solve any problems - just create (or reinstate) other problems.

For the record, I'm anti death penalty and against the war too.

KT

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Beccy
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 12:47 PM

Nicole, you said:
"In some places a woman is culturally or religiously not even permitted to say no -- and you can start by looking at the Christian Church. One of the reasons AIDS has spread so rapidly in Africa is because women are simply not in any position to dictate anything about sex."

Please tell me of which Christian Church you speak. I have attended a Christian Church since birth and have never heard anyone say that a woman is required by bonds of her faith to have sex with anyone. I've read the Bible cover to cover and there has not been one passage where God commands women to have sex with anyone at all. I'm awfully curious as to where you get the basis in fact to make this statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 01:05 PM

While I am not an aethist, neither am I Christian. This website, though full of personal opinion, does a good job of pointing out what Bible verses the religious right use to tout their agenda. Of course, I believe it is all up to interpretation, but that does not diminsh the fact that a lot of religious people are very literal minded and do believe in the fundamentalist viewpoint.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Peg
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 01:10 PM

My views on this (and I have 'em!) are basically summed up by saying, the right to choose whether or not a woman is to carry her pregnancy to term is something which cannot and should not ever be legislated. It should depend entirely upon any health or personal issues concerning the two parents but primarily the mother whose body is the one involved. A woman who waits until well into the second trimester to consider abortion is endangering her reproductive health, IMHO.
I have no interest whatsoever in hearing men's opinions on this, though I do appreciate those who at least approach the issue with an open mind and heart and who agree it is a woman's choice, in the end.
Anyone disagree with that? Then consider my proposal: For every occasion upon which a woman is not allowed to have an abortion even when she wants one (we are headed this way and in some states it is nigh on impossible to get this medical procedure for economically-disadvantaged women), we should also perform a vasectomy on at least one male.
No? Thought so. Keep your laws off my body. Sometimes the old rhetoric is best.
I am wondering whatever happened to RU-486. It should be legal and widely available in this country by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 01:12 PM

Beccy,

I, too, respect your consistency of opinion. In response to some of thie things you've said:

There's a difference between supporting elective abortion and supporting an individual's right to make their own ethical choice. Would I? No, I wouldn't. I make that choice for myself -- but I also don't force my choice on anyone else, because I believe it to be an ethical decision, not a criminal act.

The concept of murder is fuzzy, from a legal and social standpoint. Although we give lip service to it, the fact is we don't live in a society where killing is considered wrong. Instead, we live in a society where certain kinds of killing are considered wrong, and that's a crucial difference. Those who state that abortion is wrong merely on the premise of the idea that it is wrong to kill another human rarely apply that to ALL humans. (Quakers and similar philosophies excepted.) Self-defense is the most common method by which even people who tend to be strongly pro life (in the real sense of the word, and not the political one), will accept killing. It's that point at which the notion that abortion is wrong merely because it is killing falls apart. There has to be some other distinction, in our society, of why this should be a "wrong" kind of killing.

Is it because it's innocent life? Is it because it's defenseless? Is it because it's a child? Is it because that's what your religion tells you? Is it because of need?

People have different reasons for making the distiction that they do. So, to, do people who support abortion as an ethical choice, and not as a criminal act.

I can only speak for my personal sense of ethics. To me, it's an ethical and not a criminal question because while I perceive a fetus as alive in the technical sense of the word, I also view trees and animals and sometimes rocks as alive. I eat meat. I write on paper. Being alive is not criteria enough.

I would kill in self-defense, and not think twice about it. Being of the human species, is therefore not enough.

The key criteria, for me, that makes it an ethical choice is the sense of personhood. "Personhood" is an elusive concept. Why do westerners refuse to eat cats and dogs as an abhorrent practice, while it's considered okay to eat cows and pigs and chickens? It's not intelligence -- pigs are far smarter than dogs. Yet traditionally, in Asia a cat or dog is considered fair game for dinner. It's a nebulous sense of "personhood." We think that's it's wrong to eat a cat, for example, because we have socially granted it a sense of personhood above and beyond the fact it is not human.

To me, an unborn baby is not a person. It does not reason (IMO). It does not act in ways which transcend instinctual need. Cats reason. Dolphins and whales reason. Elephants reason. In my sense of personhood, I include those species for the same reason I would exclude unborn babies.

So why would I consider abortion an ethical choice, and yet would not choose that for myself? I don't like abortion because I don't like unnecessary killing. I would never hunt for pleasure, although I would hunt for food. I avoid stepping on bugs and earthworms, but kill spiders inside my house because I'm allergic to their bites. I don't even use live Christmas trees. And, because while I may not consider an unborn baby to be a person, it has the potential to be one, and I hate destroying potential.

My ethics lead me to that choice.

Sorry for the rambling, but it's the only way I can think to explain (for myself only), why I don't perceive a disconnect between opposing something like war in Iraq (massive unnecessary killing) while supporting personal choice. But then again, I'm a libertarian-leaning liberal -- a rare breed compared to the more common socialist-leaning liberal. I will almost always support the choice and inclination of an individual, excluding those items which dramatically affect the common good. I don't think the government is either properly equipped nor capable nor justified in making ethical choices for everyone. But others will have to speak for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 01:13 PM

P.S. Love and good wishes to Arfus.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 01:25 PM

P.P.S. I was not referring to the Bible, Beccy. Not too long ago I made the error of equating the Bible with the sum of Christian thought, and was rightly chastized for it. Among other things, the anti-female writings of St. Paul and St. Augustine were used as justification throughout the Catholic Church and into the Protestant movement for the subjugation of women in all things. In particular:

Ephesians 5.22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Fortunately, most women today live in areas that are of more secular mind, but this is certainly not true for all. Women in most Fundamentalist households are expected to order the family exactly as it states in the Bible -- subject to her husband's whim in all things.

Okay, I'm done for now!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: kendall
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 01:27 PM

Beccy, I believe it is generally accepted that if the foetus is viable OUTSIDE the mothers body, it should not be aborted.

I am not pro abortion, I am not anti abortion. I AM anti government in an are that is a spiritual decision.
This old arguement that abortion is a birth control method is pure tripe. A woman would have to have the IQ of a soil sample to go that route. Men have no clue what a woman must suffer to have that procedure, and, I agree with Peg, we should just but out.
You don't approve of abortion? DONT HAVE ONE.
In my opinion, the republicans are all for protection of babies from conception to birth.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 01:45 PM

Peg: Yeah, I posted that one earlier except with a different twist. I tied the abortion to the vascectomy of the father. That would end this thing right now since this is more a *male* driven issue. You know, the same ol lovable creatures that get you all pregnant in the first place and then bail when the going gets tough. But let's make sure that we are comfy while you womenz is stuck with trying to raise kids and support yourselves. Right? Don't want to put no hardships on the *males*, now do we? And we know what a joke the Bureau of Support Enforcment is. Really. They could catch us but they only catch a few to jstify their existence and leave the rest alone. (And no, I not speaking personally since I haven't done any of this sfuff, but way too mnay have.)

Nicole: As per usual, a brilliant piece of *rambling*. Hey, it all made sense to me, anyway...

And real glad to see a couple por-lifer's step to the plate on the war and capital punishment question. Unfortunately, you two are in a tiny little minority of pro-lifers.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 01:48 PM

I usually read the whole thread through before responding, but I stumbled upon a few manipulators of the issues and decided not to read their dogmatic "arguments" and the folks who responded when they felt their hot buttons being pushed. You have to ignore ideologues who feel empowered when they can blast away all they want, saying things calculated to offend, then hit the "submit message" button. No courage required for that. Face-to-face, someone would have managed to stem their flow of vitreol or would have left the room. So here you just have to step around these piles of manure on the thread and move on.

Beccy, you live in a nation that wears great big blinders regarding women's rights around the world. Many cultures and religions oppress females in many parts of the world, sexually and economically. Look at parts of Africa--it's all the rage to try to cure AIDS by having sex with a virgin. They're taking this to such extremes that it isn't just young teens or girls, but toddlers and baby girls that are being raped. These females have ABSOLUTELY no choice. These are a variety of religions involved with this myth that has taken hold.

Visit here or here for more on the topic.

To bring it closer to home, look at the flack the Southern Baptist Convention created for themselves a few years ago. (The Texas variety is even worse than some of the rest!) The convention passed an ammendment to their church's policies recently. Women should submit graciously to their husbands. I know, from reading the documents, that this as worded should imply the statement means "head of household," but from some of the Bubbas I've met and heard of around here, I know darned well that these guys interpret it to mean submit to sex. And the male church leaders know it also.

And abortion is nobody's business except that between the woman, her partner, and her doctor.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: JenEllen
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 02:20 PM

I'm a pro-lifer who put herself through two years of undergrad by doing pre- and post-surg counseling of women and post-surg pathology on fetuses at an abortion clinic.

Yup. Pro-lifer, but it's a choice made for MYSELF. I feel confident enough that I won't end up in a situation where abortion is my only alternative, but I know it's not that way for everyone, and I can't imagine dictating my personal beliefs to an entire population. That is ridiculous.

What I found to be the case was that many of the pro-lifers seemed to think that all abortion advocates were rabid killers. If you are 'for' abortion, you must think that every pregnant woman 'needs' one. She doesn't need one, she just needs the choice.

Thankfully, the clinics in the system where I worked were perfectly happy in using my beliefs to deter women from having abortions. During the conselling and bloodwork/ultrasound, I was allowed to talk to women, give them options, phone numbers for supportive care, and free birth control to prevent further unwanted pregnancies. I found that a lot of women ended up coming to the clinic out of ignorance. They were alone and uninformed, and upon receiving the information that yes there are free health clinics, yes there is family counseling available, and yes there are people to help you, they made an informed decision as to whether or not they wanted to continue the pregnancy. At NO TIME was anyone in the clinic regarded badly for helping women to go on being pregnant, while at the same time the (equally uninformed) picketers in the parking lot were accusing us of dragging women in off the street to 'fill our quota of murder'.

Granted, we had every possible scenario walk through the door, from 13yr old rape victims, to prostitutes who used abortion as birth control, to 60yr old women who got the surprise that "Oh, you mean it's NOT menopause?"--but each of those women deserved to have CORRECT information about their alternatives, and IF the alternative they chose was abortion, they deserved to have the procedure done as quickly and safely as possible.

What I think these politicians fail to realize is that it is not a 'quick fix' for women. Many, from their first realization of their condition, think constantly about that possible child's life, but it's hard to create an accurate picture when you don't have all the puzzle pieces. Better than outlawing abortion, they should probably spend their time/effort/money in making the alternatives and education more easily available for women. Birth control needs to be available and they should ssk themselves the simple question: "If I woke up tomorrow alone and pregnant, what would I want to know?" and make those answers advertised and readily available instead of masking the situation as some back-alley enigma that polite people don't talk about.

~JE (off my soapbox now, I swear!)

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 02:31 PM

Wow, JenEllen! Great speech.

On behalf of women everywhere, can I please say thank you for treating pregnant women like patients? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: JenEllen
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 03:07 PM

How about thanking me for treating pregnant women like people? *bg*

In one of my favourite books, Leonard Bernstein talks about how he 'dumbs down' music for 'common folk' (emphasis mine, not his) by mentally giving his speeches to George Washington. How do you accurately explain something to someone who has no prior knowledge of the subject? Would you tell a 16yr old G.W. that since he's 16, he has to have a car, without first explaining what a car is, what it can and cannot do, and how to operate it safely because he or someone else might die as a result of operating it? Hopefully not. I think the same should apply to sex and all the resulting situations that might come from it. Information should be a right and not a privilege.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Beccy
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 03:17 PM

NicoleC,
Thanks for keeping it mellow. I hate being shouted at. As for St. Paul, no one ever said he had a winsome personality.

Aloise Buckley Heath once said, "St. Paul is not my favorite saint, and I can't think why God didn't either fell him to the ground a great deal harder than He did or else set him to preaching, not Christianity but Judaism, which would have driven absolute hordes of Jews into the arms of the Church."

Since we're on good old Paul, here... following the passage you quoted:

"Ephesians 5.22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."
Paul continues in Ephesians 5:25 "Husbands, love your wies, as Christ also loved the Church..." Ephesians 5:28 So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. (29) He that loveth his wife loveth himself, for no man ever hateth his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it. (31) For this cause shall a man cleave to his wife. Let everone of you love his wife as himself."

Granted, Paul was not a real charmer, and I don't recall ever reading anything about a Mrs. St. Paul (for good reason) but he did make an effort to explain a man's responsibility toward his wife. Mutual submission and respect(Read: putting each other first)echos the bilateral nature of healthy human relationships. Partnership is a profound mystery.

Paul (as I'm not Catholic, I don't normally refer to him as St. Paul) is a favorite of people who dislike Christianity 'cause of his not-so-gentle approach. However, I think it is important to take the comments into context along with Christ's message of equality (which any Christian will agree trumps good old Paul.)

Back to the abortion issue: You said that you would consider the war in Iraq a massive unnecessary killing. I say the same of abortion.

You also say, "It's a nebulous sense of "personhood." We think that's it's wrong to eat a cat, for example, because we have socially granted it a sense of personhood above and beyond the fact it is not human.

To me, an unborn baby is not a person. It does not reason (IMO). It does not act in ways which transcend instinctual need. Cats reason. Dolphins and whales reason. Elephants reason. In my sense of personhood, I include those species for the same reason I would exclude unborn babies."

Because of the very nebulous sense of personhood to which you attribute your support of legal abortion, I think it important to extend the protection that we would to someone who does reason to the being which cannot. I would no more end the life of someone who has become severly disabled than I would that of an unborn baby.

You also said:
"It's that point at which the notion that abortion is wrong merely because it is killing falls apart. There has to be some other distinction, in our society, of why this should be a "wrong" kind of killing."

To this, I say there is a difference between killing and murder. We go back to the sometimes unavoidable killing of another in self-defense. We agree that is not murder, right? Murder is done with premeditation, malice afore-thought or of passion. A crime of passion is a crime nonetheless. IMO, that puts abortion in the category of murder. Donc, we are left where we started. To paraphrase, if you already believe, there is no proof necessary. If you do not believe, there is no proof sufficient.

Thanks for discussin' Nicole. Your good wishes shall be passed along to Arfus.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 03:29 PM

"you two are in a tiny little minority of pro-lifers"

Very probably not, world wide.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Beccy
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 03:29 PM

SRS- I don't defend those scum-bags who believe in the virgin cure nor do I defend the scumbags who twist the words of Christ and interpret the messages in the Bible to prop up their phallic world view.

You said: "And abortion is nobody's business except that between the woman, her partner, and her doctor. " Aside from the fact that I would add the baby to that list (big surprise, eh?) I want to ask you a question. Do you think her partner actually has any say in whether or not she has an abortion as it stands now? Do you think her partner should have a say? Really. I want to know.

a bientot

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Beccy
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 03:37 PM

Yikes...I sounded scary there. Can you tell I've got an Uber-Feminist for a sister? I hear a little too much of that "phallic" this and "phallic" that. What I meant was that I don't think you can blame their domineering attitude toward women on Christ and the Bible any more than you can blame the bombing of the World Trade Center on the teachings of Muhammad. (PLEASE don't flame me on that analogy. It's the best I could come up with.)

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 04:14 PM

One of the reasons I was avoiding the word "murder," Beccy -- it has a connotation of wrongness that is derived from the situation and the point of view of people involved. "Killing" is an action, "murder" is an opinion.   

Paul is not my favorite, either. He's right up there with Augustine. Both were passionately anti-female; unfortunately both have had a bigger say on the way Christianity has been practiced through the ages than almost anyone else. Paul preached mutual respect, but not mutual submission -- men were to submit to God and women were to submit to men. It creates a heirarchy that places women at the bottom (well, above children.) My beef with organized Christianity overall has generally been that after about the year 27 AD, it ceased to bear any relation to the message of Jesus. Jesus was somewhat of a radical feminist for the time. (Much like Mohammed, but his followers tend to ignore him on that subject, too.)

I totally agree with your point of view on marriage, BTW. It's just not what the Fundies and literal interpretationists are preaching, and many women live under those circumstances.   Buffered, fortunately, by secular law in this country, and I personally think it's important to keep that distinction between law and voluntary custom.

"Because of the very nebulous sense of personhood to which you attribute your support of legal abortion, I think it important to extend the protection that we would to someone who does reason to the being which cannot. I would no more end the life of someone who has become severly disabled than I would that of an unborn baby. "\

But where to draw the line of protection and how? Vegans extend the concept of personhood to most animals and won't eat them or use them to create food. It's a degree of selection, because even vegans kill cockroaches, right? Whereever you draw the line of protection, you are making it based on your personal sense of rightness.

You're quite right in that the argument of reason is difficult when dealing with a human is essentially a mental vegetable. But when dealing with the opinion of "murder," you will find very few people who would advocate them as fair game. In this example, there is a general concensus of opinion that is is a wrong killing, and therefore murder. There is little or no controversy; society has included them as protected by general acclaim.

I suspect that neither one of us is going to budge on this subject. But, as Blackmun says, if so many theologians and philosphers and people cannot agree on the rightness or wrongness of an issue, is it the place of the government to assert an opinion and enforce it on everyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 05:44 PM

I'm a Roman Catholic, and proud to be one - generally.

Today, the newspaper announced that our bishop says our Catholic governor should not receive communion, because the governor has signed legislation that is what one would consider "pro-choice." I don't think much of the governor, Gray Davis of California, who seems to be a spineless political opportunist akin to Bill Clinton - but I don't think he has ever done or said anything that would make me think he believes that abortion is something wonderful. Personally, I believe that both are guilty of political grandstanding, and neither one has much concern for the women who have to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

I think that people who are strongly for or against abortion are out of touch with reality, and most have never been faced with having to decide whether to abort or not to. I think most of the rest of us would say that abortion is never a cause for clebration, but it sometimes may be the best of a number of bad solutions to a very difficult problem. I think most of would agree that it is impossible to have practical legislation against abortion - if millions of women are having abortions, no law is going to be able to stop them. Still, this would be a much better world if we could eliminate most abortions by eliminating the reasons why women choose to have abortions - poverty, irresponsible sex, abusive relationships, inadequate sex education, and unavailability of contraception.

I think I can call myself pro-life, but I don't see this as a black-and-white issue. I believe that abortion, war, capital punishment, and euthanasia are wrong - in most circumstances. Sometimes, though, they may be the only reasonable choice. the so-called "life issues" almost always involve serious decisions - decisions that should never be made lightly.

And in the case of Sacramento, California, both the Governor and the Bishop are wrong.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: DougR
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 07:07 PM

5-4 Bobert! 5-4! Yep, you're right, and if any of the majority retire, we will have more of the same ...except they will be younger! One of the best things about the Republicans having a majority in the senate!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: kendall
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 07:16 PM

You will never make me believe that any woman would choose abortion ($400.00 to $500.00) as a method of birth control. It's just plain silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Beccy
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 07:29 PM

Kendall- I know someone who used it as birth control (when she was "unlucky enough to get pregnant.") So you may not want to believe it, but when you can get a free abortion at a clinic with very little fancy talking, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 07:42 PM

Because it's a physically and mentally traumatic experience? There's quite a difference between choosing to get an abortion after accidentally getting pregnant and the usual accusation that there's an epidemic of women deliberately and habitually don't bother to use birth control because they prefer an abortion. You'd have to be particularly stupid to go for option #2, at least more than once.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: JenEllen
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 07:42 PM

Kendall-- In my experience, it was a pretty common thing to have happen. We had files several inches thick from women who frequented some pretty nasty places, ended up pregnant, then went to DSHS and applied for medical coupons. I don't know about other states, but in Washington, medical coupons covered abortions. It was very easy to get an abortion at the expense of JQPublic---(as part of my training at the clinic, I had to go down and 'apply' to see what our clients went through. I had a green light in three business days). Part of the social dilemma, really, if they don't want women to have them, why make it so damn easy?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 Jan 03 - 10:29 PM

Beccy, are you presuming that the woman's partner should make the decision? Or that in relationships where this decision has to be made, that it isn't automatically discussed between them and reached mutually? That the man will think less or or stand in judgement of the woman? What exactly are you asking? Are you trying to suggest that "if men only knew," there wouldn't be so much abortion, that they'd want their babies whatever the cost? It seems to me to be too glib to suggest that only if men carry babies in pregnancy should they make the final decision, but that seems to be where you're wanting this to be headed. Do you have an argument that somehow men would never opt for abortion? You're making pronouncements about what "murder" is and saying that abortion is murder. And any number of people have politely disagreed with you. I disagree with you. I suggest you give this subject a rest and count yourself lucky if you never find yourself in a position where such a decision has to be made. Even if you think you already know the answer, its the path that leads to having to make the decision that we're also talking about here.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 12:37 AM

Careful, Jendarlin'. While I agree that there are some abuses and I applaud your putting yourself in the trenches, that last bit of why are they so easy to get if they don't want them having them, plays right into the hands of those who would lead us back to coat hangars and back alleys.

It just became more difficult here in Western Colorado, anyway. The only women's reproductive clinic in the area closed down today because the doctor retired. It was also the only abortion provider. Now anyone who wants an abortion will have to travel to Salt Lake City or Denver, just like in the old days, only then it was to New Mexico because they were illegal in CO and Utah.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: JenEllen
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 12:51 AM

No, kat, I'm not playing into anything. It's an honest point to be made. At the time, I was unaware that part of my taxes were spent in a welfare program that funded abortions. It might be the same in Maine, and if Kendall were unaware, and for some reason offended that his money was going to fund such services, he has a right to be informed and protest such through legal/political means. To my mind, the picketers and pro-lifers energy and resources would be much better spent in harassing government into changing the 'system' than in harassing women who are working within it.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 03:56 AM

Yes, I agree,their energy would be better spent going after the government, but that's a lot of what they have been doing, isn't it? Else how did we get such an anti-abortion president and government to the point we are having this thread discussion?

I wasn't referring to your point about government funding; only, the part about them being so easy to get. They were not so easy to get not too many years ago. We fought long and hard to secure a woman's right over her own body AND to make sure that that one previously illegal option was open to all women, regardless of their financial status.

Making them harder to get, esp. for poorer women, is exactly what bush and his ilk want.

Sorry, I know you know that, but I need to make sure it is clear where I was coming from.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: JenEllen
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 09:10 AM

Sure kat, it makes perfect sense. I just know that for myself, finding out that tax money was so easily available in our state was kind of a let-down. I guess I'm just selfish. I fully believe in a woman's right to choose, that choice is a personal choice, but when everyone is paying for it? It's a public choice, and not one that a lot of folks are aware of.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 09:22 AM

Yeah, I know that is a stickler for a lot of folks. Same could be said for tax dollars going to fund weapons which may wipe out thousands of Iraqis, too, though. I am not sure where we draw the line as there are so many people who don't want to fund this or that. I know some people who would not fund abortions and also would take all assistance away from single moms. I really beieve government has no business regulating our bodies.

thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 09:47 AM

Jen:

I'll just take a minute here before going off to work to throw a couple other things into the mix.

In my first life, you know, the part where wide eyed idealist go out to save the world, i worked as a teacher, then a jailhouse taecher, then a drug rehab couselor and then 8 years as a social worker so I've kinda seen a side of life that a lot of folk don't get to see. It sounds to me Like you have brushed with it but maybe not at the "porjects" level.

But what I did learn is that even before Clinton's "Welfare Reform" (Haha) Bill the ADC (Aid to Dependeant Children) and AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependant Children) was a terribly punitive system after two children were in the home and the grants (welfare) were not so that a mother with four kids would get appreciably more than one with three. Which was purdy danged little.

Now, there's something about the projects that just breeds angry, violent and non productive people. The system insures it. The schools are in ill repair. The father is generally not in the home because if he were then the ADC checks would be cut off in most cases. Well, what I am getting at is a pragmatic attitiude toward the relatively low cost of assisting a mother in poverty with not having to bare the responsibility of yet another unwanted child, who will grow up in a culture of violence and be a drain on the system perhaps all of his or her life, thru crime, courts and incarceration. Now I know this is a harsh way to look at things but it is worth a moment of relection here in this discussion.

We know, just as before the Roe decision that folks with the means were getting abortions and it is these same folks who seem to have the most problem accepting the possibility that some another woman without the means my be assisted.

Just thought I'd at least throw this into the mix.

Gotta go to work.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 09:47 AM

JenEllen, the public is paying for a LOT of procedures, many of them you might consider unsavory. Poor people need a vast range of medical offerings, just like everyone else with access to private insurance. (Or not. There are a lot of people who fall in the middle, no insurance and no access to medicare or medicaid). To suggest that poor women should somehow fund their own abortions even if everything else is covered, when abortion is legal, is a rather ala carte approach to reforming public medicine. This nation has such a hard time dealing with Sex. Many private insurance companies will deal with various ob/gyn issues, but they won't pay for birth control pills. This somehow presumes that sex is a frivolous option, mere recreation for people (great pun, by the way!), and they're not going to encourage sex by making it easier for women to afford prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

What is the logic at work here? Big Daddy Boss Hogg who runs the insurance company KNOWS that sex is as much a driving force for living beings as is eating and sleeping, and knows that people are gonna go ahead and do it. And just like they afford food to eat, they'll manage somehow to afford birth control pills. . . except they don't or can't always, and then those unwanted pregnancies happen. Perhaps they used less reliable methods, or nothing, but the insurance company is BANKING on the odds that more women will go ahead and buy their own birth control and the company won't have to pay as much at the back end of the transaction for abortions as they would up front from supplying birth control. When viewed in this economic context, it IS obscene, isn't it?

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: JenEllen
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 09:49 AM

Govenrment regulation is only part of the problem (if you rely on the govenrment for welfare money, isn't that being regulated as well?). Forgive my using the same tired metaphor, but the aforementioned 16yr old G.W. kid? Which car is the teenager going to appreciate and care for more---one they were given, or one they had to work for? When something like this procedure that is so life-altering is tossed around like so much paperwork, it becomes ridiculous and wasteful.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: kendall
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 09:56 AM

Abortion is NOT murder. I know, it's a great shock word, but, murder is a legal term and abortion does not qualify. Execution of criminals is closer to murder.

Are we talking "tax dollars" like it was the money? If so, look at it this way, it costs the taxpayers $400 to 500 dollars for a poor woman to have an abortion. What would it cost to raise that unwanted child to adulthood through the system? Surely, it cant be the cost you are concerned about.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 10:25 AM

Kendall,

I left that argument out of my last contribution--because I could spend all day addressing that one. My mother was an MSW working in Child Protective Services. The stories she would tell. . . So many babies and small children who are unwanted die at the hands mostly of young fathers who are clueless about care of babies. Shaken babies, battery, and scalding seem to be the causes of death I see most frequently in the news. Hindsight gives us far too many examples of when, if mothers who don't want children don't have the commonsense to participate in adoption, that abortion would have been the best answer. It's a very Hobbsian life for many of those children. Brutish and short.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: DougR
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 12:53 PM

Kat: here us where I believe we draw the line on federal spending:
It's okay to spend federal money on projects that we personally believe to be okay. It is not okay to spend money on things we do not approve of.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: JenEllen
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 02:08 PM

Thanks Bobert and SRS, must've missed you in the cross-posting.

No, Bobert, I really haven't worked at the 'porjects' level, but I have lived at them. I understand the system, and the anger it breeds, but what I don't understand is the lack of adequate education---prevention instead of a cure, ya know?
I also understand that pragmatic attitude you speak of, I can also say that I've been there (try any time I try to go to the store and have to fight my way down an aisle full of the unsupervised, snot-nosed little petri dishes *g*) The point I was trying to make, and failed miserably at, I guess, was that at the time I went through the clinic training, I was all of 19yrs old and riding the poverty line myself. I was heartily pissed at having to have to work my ass off only to give money away to people who obviously didn't seem to care. I learned later that it wasn't that they didn't 'care', so much as they just didn't know any better than to go with immediate gratification (duh? how did they get into that mess in the first place?)
EDUCATION--and a correct education--is the only way to avoid it. Like I said before, I fully support abortion rights, but it's not like it's 'forty acres and a mule, call the neighbors, we're gonna have a party'. It is an ugly, painful, and sometimes necessary procedure. If it can be avoided by giving a woman other options, I'm all for it (and I don't know of any abortion doctor who would feel bad about losing the money, trust me). I can't tell you how many times I was in counselling with women only to hear them say "But, my boyfriend won't use condoms...I don't know how...etc" I'm perfectly comfortable in showing them how, or in saying "Yeah, but if I show you how to put one on with your mouth, he might feel differently about using them, right?" Then sending them out the door with a lunchsack full of free condoms and never seeing them in the clinic for an abortion again.
Have a good day at work!

   
Hi SRS, sorry to have missed you too. I know about the 'unsavoury' procedures, a lot of them get perfected on animals a long time before they are ever done on humans. I'm also sorry that I confused you--I wasn't trying to downplay the extent of public medicine, just that it seemed to be treated in an awfully mundane way. Public money covers the procedure itself, not education to prevent it, or counselling for the women afterwards--they are missing a huge chunk of the problem by doing so.
I knew about the insurance not paying for birth control, we have a lot of that up here too. However, most women that are the vast majority of repeat procedures are entirely unaware that clinics will give away free or low-cost birth control. We didn't give away Norplant or Depo, but we had cases of sponges, foams, condoms, pills, etc, all for a 'pay what you can' price.
Like I was telling Bobert above, and you touched on it so well, the obscenity for me isn't in the procedure itself, but in the lack of accurate information and education. This is a sort of vicitimization that is entirely preventable, but it requires sifting through aeons of social taboo. (I can't tell you how difficult it was to get a SexEd class for my group of disabled adults--the college actually forbid it! And 4 of the women in the class had children!)
Anyway, I have no doubt the RoeVWade is safe, there is too much positive support (mine included) to overturn it, but I wouldn't be upset in the least if more folks chose to support prevention.

~JE

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: NicoleC
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 02:19 PM

It should be remembered that for Roe v Wade to be "overturned," (the court can't arbitrarily overturn a former judgement) a similar case has to come before the Supremes. The only way I can think for that to happen is for a state to pass an anti-abortion law, have a woman or women challenge it's constitutionality again, and then have the case so all the way to the US Supreme Court -- where the state law has to be upheld.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Beccy
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 02:26 PM

SRS- You told me to give the subject a rest. Do you tell everyone you disagree with to shut up? I have as much right to my opinion as anyone else. As I am not one of those who stands picketing in front of abortion clinics I think this is a pretty constructive environment in which to voice my opinion. Yes, I think that it's a good idea to hear opposing viewpoints- how radical.

You may want to skip the rest of this post since you're not interested in my dissenting opinion.

To those who care to hear what someone who differs from them thinks,
my question was a question. It was not an accusation. I seriously want to know if people who support abortion think that the other party to the creation of the baby gets a say in whether or not it is eliminated. If not, why not (again, a question- NOT an accusation)?

As for me, I'll go ahead and speak for myself. If I believe that a human life, once created, must be protected, it stands to reason that I would think that both parties to the pregnancy should be involved in the case of legal abortion. Do I have an argument that men would be less likely to opt for abortion? No. Sadly, I would suspect that men would be as likely as women to opt for abortion due to the distance they physically have from pregnancy. Because they are unable to carry a baby, I don't think they are as quickly aware of all the emotional and physical ties. Do I think people who are in a relationship automatically discuss a pregnancy and abortion? No. No one is naive enough to think that every relationship has great communication. Should they? Of course.

Even among those friends of mine who support the right to elective abortion, there is general agreement that the fewer abortions are performed the better. My reason for bringing up the topic of whether men should have a say or not is a concern for the rights of the father. Fathers have very few rights in this society and I think that is to the detriment of their children. To me, it is also about their rights. It may be naive of me, but I think that if people are really informed and discuss all the options, they will be less likely to choose abortion.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 03:19 PM

What has surprised me, (and forgive me for getting into this conversation so late) Is that no-one has brought up the extreme actions of the (some of) pro-lifers.
Is bombing clinics and assasinating Doctors the way to show me that they respect LIFE?
I don't think so. It only shows me how hypocrites work.
pro-lifer violence
With that said I say,"Bravo!" to this discussion. There are many people here who have great passion and excellent points on the issue.
Peace, Rustic (pro-choice)

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: DougR
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 03:22 PM

Beccy: I do think the man who participated in making he pregnancy should be consulted. I do not believe, however, his objection (if there is one) should prevail. It is the woman who has to bear the child, and in most cases see to the rearing of the baby. The final decision should rest with her.

JenEllen: good post.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: NicoleC
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 03:25 PM

Well, I'll answer, Beccy.

I would hope that most women would discuss the issue with the father. However, I don't believe the father's permission should be required. There are too many times when it could present an excessive an unequal hardship on the woman. Do we track down a rapist to get his permission to let the woman abort? What about a 13 year old girl impregnanted by her father -- if he would sleep with his 13 year old, do you think he will give permission for an abortion? What if he did it because he WANTED another child? A woman involved in or trying to get out of an abusive relationship? A woman with a husband who refuses to allow her to use birth control, but is facing her 7th pregnancy in as many years and the physical drain that comes from repeated pregnancies? A woman who's life is at particular risk, but her husband/lover says no, she must risk her life in pregnancy? A man who doesn't understand the possible consequences of a second Rh+ baby to an Rh- woman?

I agree that fathers' rights are often wrongly curtailed. Even men who try to be active and supportive fathers often find themselves at odds with a system that assumes that they are somehow less capable of caring for a child than a woman. But this is an area where it is far too easy for a man to impose his opinion and then not have to live with the consequences. Who tracks down fathers who abandon children?

No man ever died in childbirth, no man has ever had to accept the physical hardship of pregnancy; even though those risks have been minimized in the modern era, that still makes a woman's vested interest in a child greater than the man's. There is a difference often between law and justice. No law can account for every possible situation. In the case of where the legal rights of one party could cause undue and measurable harm to another party, I think it would be an unjust law.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: NicoleC
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 03:29 PM

Must be a full moon, Doug, we've agreed twice this week!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Beccy
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 03:40 PM

Actually, Rustic Rebel, it was touched on briefly in as much as the few of us on this thread who are pro-life disavowed the actions of those who are often viewed as the spokespeople of the pro-life movement. Of course the violence is wrong. Not only is it in diametric opposition to the pro-life position, it does nothing but irreparable harm to the message that they purport to espouse.

Every movement has its loonies and psychopaths. Not every person who believes in something behaves in the same way. That's why the "judge not lest ye be judged" commandment is in the Gospels. It does not mean don't form an opinion on someone's actions- it's a prohibition against rash behavior. I said it before, and I think it was on this thread, but I might've said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again.

Most pro-life people cringe when they see the loud-mouthed, pushy and hurtful people who are chosen by the media juggernaut as spokespeople for our cause. Most of us confine our efforts to mutual debate and quiet prayer that hearts will be changed. I'm sure everyone here would admit that it is the loudest mouth that gets the most media attention. I guess this is the long way of saying that I hope you don't actually think that most pro-lifers espouse violence against abortion providers or the browbeating of women entering clinics where abortions are performed.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Beccy
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 03:43 PM

Sneaky, RR... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 04:41 PM

NicoleC, I think your fine arguments are going to fall on deaf ears. Rhetorical questions don't work with her, either.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 05:09 PM

There are people who track down deadbeat fathers, and prosecute them, Nicole, at least in Los Angeles, and I assume in other large cities. But I am sure they are very limited in the scope of their reach and in their effectiveness as ide from the lawyering parts.

Being male, I feel like I di not have much of a voice on this issue, but it seems to me that Roe vice Wade is a very humane law which leaves (as all laws should) the moral constraints which derive from religous conviction up to those who subscribe to them. It is not the law's job to define spiritual matters or even moral matters, really.

And you can rest assured that int he absence of Roe v. Wade and the choice it provides women faced with pregnancy, that conditions would revert to the way they were BEFORE Roe v. Wade in the 50's and 60's, backroom or back-alley operations with much higher risks and much more trauma involved.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: NicoleC
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 05:33 PM

Yep.

Trivia: Roe v. Wade is based on the implicit Constitution right of privacy, a right which has been upheld by numerous courts since pretty much the inception of the US. (And before someone says "literal interpretation," I will remind you that the US operates under Common Law, like England, where legal precedent outweighs the letter of the law.) The word "privacy," however appears nowhere in the Constitution of the US. Undermining Roe v. Wade would essenitally undermine the right of US citizens to privacy from the government.

Anyway, the fine people of the Independant Republic of California decided to overdo things in 1972 and amended the wording of the first sentance of the constitution:

Article 1 Section 1 of the California Constitution states:
"SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

By California law, the rights granted in the state constitution are not dependant on the US Constitution. That could be an interesting legal battle IF a federal law were passed outlawing abortion. I suspect the reaction in CA would be much like the reaction to outlawing medical marijuana at the federal lew -- "come and enforce it yourself, boys!"

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 05:58 PM

Does "people" mean the same things as "human beings" in California? Because if it does...

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 05:58 PM

Becky- actually, yes. That is the picture I get in my mind when I think of pro-lifers. And I don't think I would blame it on the media. Perhaps they are the ones that instilled the image but it was the people that created the image.
Although, in my post I did say some, and I know it isn't all pro-life folks that send this image, but none the less, it is there because of the fanatic way some go about trying to save a life by taking one, that really blows my mind.
'Judge not' can go both ways on this issue.
Peace, Rustic

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 06:01 PM

I hear ya, Nicole, but 5 'ill get ya 4 it goes down, right after yer least fafvorite program, AA.

Yep, 5-4...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: NicoleC
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 06:18 PM

Kevin, the Supreme Court has ruled that fetuses are not "persons" under the 14th Amendment, and one aspect of Roe v Wade that is not at risk is the provision that any abortion law MUST put the health of the mother above the fetus, even if the fetus is viable. ("Health" is defined as physical, emotional, psychological, and familial.)

Numerous laws have been enacted in the past few years to grant legal status to fertilized embryos, but they could technically be challenged as unconstitutional. (But who's gonna challenge a law that gives double sentences to a person who kills a pregnant woman?)

Some very interesting (and long) reading here:
Roe v. Wade and Privacy Law (PDF file)

I agree that RvW is under attack Bobert, but I don't think most people realize how chilling the Constitutional ramifications of overturning it would be. Access to contraception is allowed under the right to privacy. It's illegal to forcibly sterilize people because of the right to privacy. Your medical records are safe from public disemination ONLY because of the right to privacy. It's not just abortion that's a stake -- we're talking about a fundamental revision of rights and priviledges we take for granted.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 06:21 PM

So the Weathermen were the true measure of what the anti-Vietnam protestors were really all about?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: kendall
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 08:16 PM

Doug, Beccy, I agree with you both that you have the same right to a different opinion than the majority. I raise hell about the things I dont agree on when it comes to spending my tax dollars, why shouldn't you?

By the way, a recent report states that Maine has the lowest abortion rate in New England.
ALSO my old shipmate who left the Warden service went to work as an enforcement agent at DHS. He is a moss back republican, and, he enjoys going after deadbeat dads. As head of his department, he told me they collect more than the state spends on his agency. Cost effective, that would warm the cockles of any republican's heart! LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Deda
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 08:55 PM

Clinton said that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. He was right. It may be true that we as a society need to work harder to make it rare -- but making it illegal will only make it unsafe. Abortion was practiced in ancient Rome, illegally. Ovid wrote a nasty poem about his girlfriend's abortion, saying she had no right to do it, but the foetus probably wasn't even his -- wholly and utterly irresponsible.

I had an illegal abortion, many many years ago. It was performed secretly, in the middle of the night, with no anesthetic, on a guerney in a darkened kitchen, by a Mexican midwife who kept telling me to hush, to be quiet, not to yell, she was afraid her neighbors would hear. Of course it was scarey and painful. I was young and dumb, and lucky enough to be able to have two healthy children later, whom I love dearly and whom I have often mentioned in other threads. Of course I talked about it with my boyfriend at the time, who agreed with my decision. He wasn't any prize, and probably would have agreed with anything I said, and I had to pay for it myself. I also had to travel for the abortion into another state, and I was alone.

If you haven't had to make that choice yourself, I submit that you have no idea what is involved. I have a young friend who is facing it now, and my own experience is so distant that even I can't fully appreciate what she is up against. If this procedure becomes illegal again, the people who suffer will not be the unborn, not potential people, but (mostly) young adults, with their whole lives stretching out ahead of them, who have done one dumb thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 08:59 PM

JEsus, Nicole, yer givin' me nightmares. Maybe its time someone tackled the very NON_trivial task of articulating a Consitutional amendment supporting the right to privacy. I can see the dead trees stretching off into the horizin just thinking about it!! Reams and reams and reams....but, on the other hand, if it doesn't get done, there's gonna be an awful lot of reaming going on anyway...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: NicoleC
Date: 24 Jan 03 - 09:05 PM

LOL, Amos. I don't say half the nightmare stuff I think of, in case I give anyone ideas!

Actually, I'm kinda not in favor of a Constitutional amendment re: privacy. First, the intent is very clear already. Secondly, once a constitutional cenvention is convened, they can change any bloody thing they want. Comforting, eh? Third, until the courts get this ridiculous idea out of their head that ficticious entities called corporations have the same rights as humans...

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Deda
Date: 25 Jan 03 - 11:59 PM

Boy, this thread sure went dead in a hurry. This subject seems to be much easier to discuss in hypothetical than in real, human terms. How to clear a room: admit to having had an illegal abortion.

Possible responses (roughly paraphrased)--
1. You murderer! How could you kill your baby? Just wait till Judgment Day, I know just exactly what God has in store for you and your ilk!
2. I have also (had/ been party to) an abortion. (Possibly followed by some narrative.) (We can always post anonymously if we're feeling a little weak in the knees.)
3. I'm sorry to hear that you had to go through such a thing. Maybe it's better for them to be legal and safe.
4. (The popular choice) Silence.

1&2 are awkward, potentially embarrassing, and even if truthful, best kept under one's hat, it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 12:48 AM

Deda,

This thread hadn't disappeared beyond the 24 hour line yet, and Mudcat has been down a bit today. Plus, there's a worm slowing a lot of functionality on the Internet at large. Don't underestimate this group. And understand that some of us who are of an age to understand all of the ramifications of what you had to say were quite impressed that you stood up and said it.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 02:46 AM

Hey Deda, I'm sorry to hear that you had to go through such a thing. Maybe it's better for them to be legal and safe!
I have never been faced with the situation, but you did what you thought was the best thing to do, and I hope you are alright and not living with regrets from the past.
Peace, Rustic
P.S.Here I thought it was me that this thread went,because I changed the subject and actually my posts bothered me because it wasn't the conversation, and I almost sounded like a troll trying to get shit heated up(and that stinks!). I do apologize for the thread drift.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 06:44 AM

I had missed the last few postings, including yours, Deda, until this morning. Was just getting ready to send you a PM of thanks, until I read on. Your story is EXACTLY why we must continue to have legal abortions available! Thank you very much for sharing with us.

I have a close friend who went through something very similar. She also was forced to have one by a very controlling husband (since divorced him!) who wasn't ready for children. At least the last one was legal and safe.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 08:34 AM

He wasn't ready for children? He sure as hell was ready to have sex! Irresponsible bastard.
This abortion thing has been covered in great detail since way back, and, someone posted this thought "The only people I have heard railing against abortion are, Men, women past menopause and those who are too ugly to get laid." Nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Beccy
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 08:50 AM

Deda- There is always option number 5: I'm sorry you went through that. Silence. Prayer

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Deda
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 06:31 PM

Prayer is great, and I'm a big believer in it. Sometimes I get the impression that a big part of the pro-lifer's prayer, at least for many of them, in effect goes something like this: "Dear Lord, please send an express train to hell right away to haul off everyone who's ever had or performed an abortion. Please make all those impoverished women have their unwanted children -- but then I'm never going to bother my head about them again." That's so far from my idea of prayer that the distance is immeasurable. I pray for compassion and forgiveness to take hold in this sorry world, for love to have a chance. I pray for healing. I have no interest in a dialogue with people whose idea of God includes revenge, because our ideas of divinity have no common ground. I also don't believe that prayers, no matter how ardent, can make 2+2=6. Women who have no money, or who have no help, whose dreams are important to them and whose circumstances are difficult, will continue to terminate pregnancies. Many will quite literally die rather than give birth to a child they don't want. A merciful prayer for them might be to pray for a spontaneous miscarriage, or at least a safe and affordable abortion from a compassionate provider.

There are a few pro-lifers who have credibility with me, and who have gained my respect -- and those are the ones who adopt the babies that no one wanted, the crack babies, the disabled, the "children of color" -- children who would probably have been left out to die of exposure and hunger in the ancient world. If you would like to prevent an abortion, adopt a baby.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 07:12 PM

Deda:

Bravely done, bravely spoken. You are good stuff, sis.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: NicoleC
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 07:33 PM

Bravo, Deda. Both for speaking up and for speaking up for the surplus babies that end up on the taxpayer dime without a fraction of the love they deserve. Everytime someone whines about the number of people who desperately want kids in this country, I just point them to the nearest orphanage full of not-blonde not-blue-eyed not-newborn kids, and the long waiting list for even a temporary foster home. They aren't very desperate if they reject so many children because they aren't perfect. God forbid you have a mulatto adopted child, but you'll import one from Romania.

Or they will undergo $40,000 worth of fertility treatments instead of adopting a baby that isn't of their blood -- as if it matters after the first time a child falls asleep on your chest . I noticed no one thought to respond to my query about why in vitro fertilization is acceptable killing of embryos.

And I STILL don't understand why my HMO will pay for up to $20,000 worth of fertility treatments and $1,000 for a vasectomy, but won't pay for birth control pills/devices/fittings or $1500 for a tubal ligation.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: NicoleC
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 07:34 PM

Er, sorry. So angry today for some reason...

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jan 03 - 10:25 PM

I agree, I would also like to see the anti choice folks adopt an unwanted child.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 08:31 AM

Now there's a thought, Kendall. Now if you could just make more of them kids white, it might work.

Deda: Well spoken. Good on you!

Bobert

p.s. Sorry I have neglected this thread, but I was out of town all weekend and just got back...

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Beccy
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 10:50 AM

Nicole- I agree with you about HMOs paying for fertility payments but not birth control. It surely might make some difference. I also think that invitro fertilization is unacceptable killing of embryos. A human life is a human life is a human life, to me. If you scroll back, you'll see I'm fairly consistent on this point.

Adoption? Absolutely. As I have never had any trouble getting pregnant : ) (see references to my three sons under age 5) and as it costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $30,000 to adopt in NYS, I opted for the easier method of conceiving babies with my hubby. I have a friend, however, who has not had such an easy time of it. After realizing she and her husband could not conceive without spending scads of money and doing lots of questionable things, they decided to spend the same scads of money by rescuing some babies who were unwanted. These "anti-choice" friends of mine are white, for your reference.

They adopted 2 babies who were born to crack addicted mothers. Are these kids blonde-haired and blue-eyed? Nope. They are not. Plus, they screamed almost constantly for the first 3 years of their lives. Then my friends tried to adopt again, but $60,000 later, after adopting the "kids no one wanted" (social services said) they were running a little low on cash.

They found that with $20,000 they could adopt a little girl, disabled, from Thailand. So they did.

Before you say, "Must be nice to be so rich..." my friends are not. He works a job that brings in about $35,000 annually and she stays home with the kids. They have a small apartment and drive an old car and live very, very humbly. How'd they afford it? They're in debt up to their eyeballs.

Please don't flame me about them being exceptions to the rule. I have several friends who've adopted these abandoned babies "of color" as someone here put it. Amongst the pro-life people I know, these people are the rule. I think, again, the problem is coming down to how pro-life people are portrayed in mass media.

I also think, since someone brought it up, that adoption is much too difficult in this country. There is a church somewhere out on the west coast that is pushing the theory that adoption should be free of charge to people who can provide a good home. I think that is a fantastic idea. I'd love to be the Old Woman in a Shoe. Problem is, if I'm doling out thirty grand to put an adoption through, I won't be able to feed the munchkin.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Beccy
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 10:59 AM

Nicole- Sorry for my tone. I guess you're not the only one who's angry, eh? I'm just tired of having people speak for me or assume my motives because of the my stated opinion on something. I think that's what gets things so heated.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: TIA
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 11:52 AM

Beccy;

Your friends sound like wonderful, non-hypocritical people who are doing good for the world. Whether they represent the rule or exception for anti-choice folks, I can't judge.

This thread started with comment on the possibility that the government may soon try to eliminate choice. If people are going to support the government in their fight against choice, to remain un-hypocritical, they must also fight to make sure the government behaves the way your friends do. As it is, those states with the most restrictive abortion laws tend to spend the least on services for underprivileged children. If the government is going to eliminate choice, will the government step up to the plate to take care of unwanted babies the way your friends have?

I'm highly doubtful.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: NicoleC
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 12:15 PM

I wholeheartly agree about the adoption costs being ridiculous. This is what happens when you apply an economic philosophy like capitalism to a human problem. Requiring adoptive parents to assume all costs of "production" as "buyers" makes it all the more difficult to "sell" the "merchandise." Children are not merchandise.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: beadie
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 12:26 PM

Much earlier on the list, John Hardly opined that no state would make the procedure illegal if R v W were overturned.

Au contraire, mon ami. In many states, my own dear Wisconsin included, the pre-1972 laws outlawing abortion in all forms were never rescinded and would immediately be rendered enforceable with a new USCt decision overturning Roe. Whether or not they would, in fact, be enforced is the more appropriate political question. In the Bible Belt, in the Rust Belt, in the Grain Belt (no, not the beer), who can say????

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 01:32 PM

Just a follow up, beadie, only 13% of the counties in the US offer any abotion services today. That mean that even with pro-choice, and Roe v. Wade you can not get an abortion in 87% of the counties in America.

Second, Beccy, we have a weekly show on our local NBC news channel, that is enetitled "Wednesday's Child", hosted by Barbara Harrison, who parades one kid after another who need adoption but for which their are few takers.

Where as I commend your anit-choice friends, they must not represent the majority of anti-choicers or this news sation wouldn't be making such an effort to getting these kids adopted. Oh yeah, forgot to mention, there has never to my knowledge, been a white kid on the show.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 03:23 PM

Bobert:

Counties are not the only source of abortions, are they? If not -- for example if private doctors, clinics and commercial hospitals can perform them -- your 87% figure is significantly off the mark UNLESS you are talking about people who have no access to medical services except through publically supported outlets.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: NicoleC
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 04:26 PM

That statistic refers to ANY provider within a county. I guess they pick counties as a more reliable source of regional information than say a state (too big) or a city (leaves out rural people and suburban dwellers.)

Statistical info here:
State Abortion Statistics

In brief:
"The U.S. abortion rate is now at the lowest level since 1974, down to 21.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 2000, according to new research from The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). The number of abortion providers has also fallen, from a high of 2,908 in 1982 to 1,819 in 2000... The number of providers fell in 38 states and the District of Columbia, leaving 87% of counties with no abortion provider... In the Midwest and South, nearly half of women lived in counties with no abortion provider in 2000, while in the Northeast and West, fewer than one in five women lived in such counties. "

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 05:25 PM

Thanks for the assist, Nicole. I heard this on Pacifica last week and it stuck in my head but I wouldn't have had a clue where to find their data other than email them for it and now you have found it and saved me the trouble.

See, Amos, there is some meathod to my madness. I do listen purdy good to stuff like that but it's usually when I'm in the car and can't write down every little source.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: TIA
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 05:36 PM

Is that "method" to your madness or "meathead" to your madness...just want to be sure. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Deda
Date: 27 Jan 03 - 09:37 PM

This thread seems to be slowing down. I appreciate the chance to exchange views with everyone. I apologise if I came across as angry at times. I imagine that we all have images of "the other side" of any high-stakes disagreement, and like all generalities, they're false.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 10:06 AM

I don't believe you have anything to apologize for, Deda. Just because there's no "they" there doesn't mean having to say you're sorry...or...um..something like that!! :>)

LOL!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Sam L
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 11:06 AM

I respect that someone may have a clear view of personhood based on their faith, but don't believe it can or should be legislated from there. There are other beliefs and faiths, even some without proper names. I also understand how it must pain people who find a great source of happiness in their faith that they can't do what they must feel is a great good for others. But even conveying particular tenets of faith into laws will not convey that gift. I think the idea in the Christian faith was that Christ left a gift, or burden, of freedom of belief, and that seems to me, at least, to accord pretty well with some ideas in U.S. goverment, much as it may pain some of us sometimes.

There seem to me to be strong currents of sexism in many, or the most strident anti-abortion views--I'm not saying all--and here and now I have great distrust of the current political agenda, and how it is expressed. This sexism implies that a woman's life is a little less than fully human.

I have distrust on some other issues also, and keep feeling that the grander the reasons, the more there's something that's unspoken thrown into the bargain. Sometimes the smaller arguments are more convincing. There may be right and wrong things, but there are also right and wrong ways to do those things.

    Is it pro-life if I feel the thing to do is respect that women are living lives, and particularly human lives, which means making choices?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: TIA
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 01:19 PM

Deda - even if the thread slows down, It's probably not because apathy is setting in. As for me, I feel that I've spoken my piece, so while I continue to check this thread, I will probably not post again. Thanks to Bobert for getting this one going, and thanks to all (well most) posters for thoughful contributions. The thread may die, but we're all still thinking about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 02:33 PM

And you are welcome, TIA.

Even if Roe v. Wade goes down... which I think it will... I think the arguments made here on both sides of the issue are more meaningful to me and may actually represent a better discussion than will be heard by the Supreme Court.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: GUEST,colwyn dane
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 08:34 PM

A small matter of life and death.

The poll[USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll] shows that people who consider themselves "pro-choice" are no longer a majority.
The figure is 48%, down from a high of 56% three years ago.
There is no real gender difference: 49% of women are "pro-choice," 47% of men.

The number identifying themselves as "pro-life" has risen from 36% three years ago to 42% -- men 43%, women 42%.

If you have the stomach for this sort of thing (and I haven't}you can view live abortion movies here.

They may help you to justify or arrive at another point of view on this issue.

Regards
CD

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jan 03 - 08:47 PM

How about reading the thread, CD, before throwing in you poll de jour and your propagandized movies...

Then come back and add some real thoughts rather than you obvious PR crapola, thank you...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 09:42 PM

Bobert
Unfortunately it is too much thinking that drives this issue and not nearly enough human feeling - a lack of conscience.
A matter of life and death and a question of right and wrong.

Wanton killing is wrong full stop.

Just to remind you of some of the negative manifestations of someone with a conscience - this definition is not what I would use;I quote it as you will, no doubt, be able to identify with it:

"self-reproach, poignant shame, haunting remorse, chill dismay at the prospect of the future - these emotions constitute a specific difference between conscience and our other intellectual senses,—common sense, good sense, sense of expedience, taste, sense of honour, and the like,—as indeed they would also constitute between conscience and the moral sense, supposing these two were not aspects of one and the same feeling, exercised upon one and the same subject-matter."
Above quote from 'An Essay in aid of a Grammar of Assent' J.H. Newman.


Regarding opinion polls there is a lot here about public opinion including:

Q:These are all older polls. Are they still valid, or has public opinion changed?

A:There has been surprisingly little change. About 25% of the public is firmly in the pro-life camp. About 25% call themselves pro-choice, but only a few favor abortion for the extremes such as for viable babies and sex selection. The middle 50% increasingly admit this to be a human life, but most, in an uneasy, conflicted manner, would allow "a woman's right to choose."

There is not only propaganda but information too, if you want to find it.

Bobert I have read this thread thank you;I hope that one day you will feel different about this issue; but alas, like war and prostitution, your viewpoint is going to be with us for a very long time to come.

A long life matey.
CD.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 10:34 PM

No, not really, CD. My views are held by one of the 284,000,000 folks in this country. No more, no less. But they do represent 1/284,000,000th of the views held by the American people.

My perspective comes from years of working in civil rights and with folks who we don't hear from here. The truely impoverished. My experiences in social work brought me in close contact with folks who you, CD, probably know nothing about. I have worked with folks in the projects in South Richmond and in Churchill of Richmond. My motivation comes from reality. Not fantasy. The streets. Not Wall Street.

Where I am personally anit-abortion I am still topuched by the reality of poor women, abandoned by paternal fathers, left in the projects to cope. You don't know of this level of coping, GUEST. I know in my heart that you cannot posssibly fathom the despair of living in the projects. The absolute horror of knowing there is no way out. The violence. The pain of hunger. The pain of having a child shot dead while playing in front of his or her house. I've been there! You haven't!

So, when a woman comes up pregnant andf cannot bear the suffering of yet another unwanted child, yes, I can accept her *choice* to not take on what can push the situation beyond the point of sanity. You can't. You have never seen this. I have.

Now, in a world where Suzie Creamcheeze flies off in a Bohing 747 for an abortion/vacation out of the country, it is unfathomable that you, and folks like you say to the impoverished: Screw you, you slut!

Yeah, take your elitist, pseudo-Christain, caring butt into the ghettos of America and come back and tell me that you still think your position is one that God has given you.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 Jan 03 - 11:38 PM

Bobert,

It just doesn't work to argue with ideologues like that. He/She will play fast and loose with "facts" to shove his/her truth in your face. Anonymously, of course. Real courage, eh? (not!).

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: GUEST,colwyn dane
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 08:35 PM

Bobert that old scatter-gun of yours ruffled my feathers a little matey.
You at least did get one thing right about me and so I gotta plead "Guilty M'Lud" to not knowing the folk you work with in Richmond.
I don't want to get into a "my poverty is bigger than yours" urinating contest as I suspect you have already tagged and bagged me coming from a comfortable background. You don't know nix about me matey but where I spent my formative years was no Disneyland, unless you consider that 10 of us living in a 2 bedroom house to be leading the 'life of Rockefeller';and that too in an area with the highest rate of unemployment in the UK. But funnily enough having to live in close proximity - and being second last in the pecking order - with so many kinfolk led to an early lesson in external consideration and love for other human beings. Some of the most balanced years of my life; I don't buy the argument that poverty is the cause of all the ills in this world. When you live in a poor community you don't,as a child, think that you live in, for example, a slum - it is the outsiders who visit the area who make the comparisons;to you it's your home.
Now my take on you,and I'm known to be frequently wrong,is that you are from a lower-middle to middle class background and I would guess an outsider to living in poverty - you have never walked the mile in their shoes.
Other countries especially in the 'third world' have far worse poverty problems but those societies don't throw in the towel and exclaim "anything goes" just because other societies are doing it.

Your sentance that starts: "Where I am personally anti-abortion...." I take it to mean, that you do not favour abortion for yourself but for others?
"I can accept her *choice*...." Just like Pontius Pilate you opt out and wash your hands of having to make a moral judgement and leave it others to do what you wouldn't have done to yourself.

You are so very mistaken I am not a Christian, psuedo or otherwise as the ideals of Christianity are too far away for me to attain.
Christianity forbids murder. Yet all the the whole of our progress comes to is progress in the technique of murder and progress in warfare.
How can we call ourselves Christians? But that is another issue.
I am just a simple minded Limey who can see that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes and says so in a very loud voice. People don't like to be woken up or disturbed.

The beauty of conscience, when it can be disinterred, is that it will not allow one to do anything selfish or contrary to other peoples interests, or harmful to anybody- nothing, in fact,that we may consider wrong or evil.
One conscience will not contradict another conscience on a given issue.
Of course this is light years away from reality and we gotta start from where we are now.

Just an after thought Bobert matey, how many Americans have failed to reach their Birthday in the last 29 years?

Oh wise one at Silly River - I try not to be offensive to folk so I will ignore your contribution.

Have a long life.
CD

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 09:07 PM

Yo, CD, to your last question. If you are black in America, your chances of making 29 outside of incarceration or the morgue are less than 80%. That's not too good.

Yes one in five black men will be either incarcerated or dead by the time they reach their 29th birthday. The percentages go way down at 40 years old and 50, 53, 58, 60....

Now I probably wouldn't have as strong an opinion on this issue if it weren't for what I have seen. White folks have always been able to get thiese little "annoyances" handled. Black folks and poor white's haven't.

My position is based more on the socioeconomics andm fairness rather than abortion in its self. I just think there should be a level playing field and if that means supporting "pro-choice" carte blanche then so be it.

And yeah, CD, you guessed my socioeconomic background pretty well. Having grown up in a middle class family and going off to college, I disappointed my family by emerging myself completely in the area of social work, which paid lousy but allowed me to live with a lot of folks that I am blessed to know and have known. My proudest moment, as a white kid from the middle class was the night that I was first called a "nigga" by a black man. And after that moment I knew what it meant to be a "nigga". And still do.

So my feeling are carved more from a position of fairness coupled with reality. Hey, I can live with that.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 12:54 AM

What a flawed statement: Just like Pontius Pilate you opt out and wash your hands of having to make a moral judgement and leave it others to do what you wouldn't have done to yourself.

Instead you think you are qualified to make a "moral judgement" concerning someone other than yourself?! And the "others" you refer to are going to do WHAT to Bobert!?!

Keep your moral judgements and self-righteousness to yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 01:43 AM

GUEST,colwyn dane

One conscience will not contradict another conscience on a given issue.

So "conscience" = "truth" and there's only One Truth? What a pompous way of suggesting that your sensibilities are absolute and more accurate than those of anyone who contradicts you. Or that you know what is right for another person who must make choices based on their own free will.

What a jerk.

Stilly River Sage

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Sam L
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 11:14 AM

Guest CD, it's interesting you say you aren't a Christian because it's ideals are too far away to attain. I'm not sure what you mean. Does it mean you give up on ideals because they are impossible to attain, or is it a figure you use to stone others for failing?
As someone with no religious background who simply read the stuff, as a kid, I thought the ideals and example of the New Testament, taken as a whole, without industrious and clever interpretation, called for a lot of strength and a degree of faith that many or most people simply can't muster, yes. I can't even walk on water, for example. And a lot of what's called interpretation of scripture seems to me to try to whittle it down to something that fits with the way we happen to live. The not killing is tough, if you try to imagine situations when you might. The turning the other cheek, the not worrying how you'll be fed, the not judging--some of those things are pretty hard.

    You make a comparison to war, which I wouldn't expand on, except that it's not something I'd have in a perfect world, sure. But in this world, things being what they are, I prefer not to call a soldier a murderer, a hired killer.

Many of the biblical bits and pieces some people supply as against abortion fail to explain why some things happen in life, regardless of this issue they portend to neatly address. So it tends to portray God as a benign Guippetto carving us lovingly from logs--it's pretty silly, it's quite simple, it's cartoon religion.

You say conscience? A Jimminy Cricket is one's own, usually. Aginbit of inwit, remorse of conscience--is not in the public domain, unless one has come to take it all upon themselves, and--well you seem to know the rest. Busy cricket you have there. You seem to combine the commonest moral defect of Christianity, the pretention to speak for God, with a non-profession of the faith. Huh? But I suppose what you mean is that while you may not regard yourself perfect in a faith, you intend to preach a particular point as though you were? Well. Okay.

On the whole, I hate to admit it, I'm pro-life and pro-death. I think it's science and culture, not God and religion, that feed this feeling that we should all live forever in a kindergarden world where the choices are already made for us by paternalistic God-like guys. It's because we really can't understand things like our lives and deaths and the great circle of life, simba, from a God-perspective that we feel we should usually or always err to one side, since err we must. Can we advocate death from our perch? no, at least not usually, but we have to make some hard decisions. Some people--maybe those whose faith keeps them high and dry alongside the boat the rest of us are in--they think they can make the decision for the others, regardless of the real-life consequences.
   
   I really should quit this now since I've said what I think here and on other threads. There are other pressing issues I'll never have to personally decide that I could be devoting my moral sensibilities to. I could be considering whether a part in a movie that I'm not in really calls for me to do a nude-scene that no one wants me to do, and whether I should bare the breasts I don't have. Something lighter, like that.                               Fred

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Deda
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 12:20 PM

Here's a Christian precept: Judge not, lest ye be judged. Think on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Beccy
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 01:32 PM

Deda- I hate to sound like a stickler for detail... but I am one, so here goes.

Judge not lest ye be judged is not a commandment to make your way through life without forming opinions. It actually commands adherants to the Christian faith to behave in the way God would have us (in other words, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" The Golden Rule and "Beloved, let us love one another. For love is of God and everyone that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God for God is love." 1 John 4:7-8)

Leaving aside entirely the subject that this thread is based upon... I just wanted to point out the fact that "Judge not lest ye be judged" is quite frequently inaccurately used.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: GUEST,colwyn dane
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 02:02 PM

I will try to clarify a few points from my last post,I'll modify an old saying to the following, "Write in haste and get it wrong; repent in leisure".
The below ideas are not original they have been around for over 2000 years.

I will answer my critics first of all - I don't mind the message being attacked but why emote negatively at another person?

Bobert and Pontius Pilate: It seem to me that it does not make any sense to be anti or pro something if you give support to the opposing argument. Some illustrations:
In the land of Nede they do not believe that all are allowed to be created. There is a law which allows Nedens,if they wish, to exterminate an organism they call a Roop. You,as a Neden, do not think that this is right and believe that a Roop is just as good as a Neden (after all you were once a Roop too) and should be allowed access to Nede;to the opportunities there to perfect themselves - the ones that you have been able to avail yourself of. Should you help the exterminating Nedens or the unprotected Roops?
An extreme example: you are a 1943 German who believes that the anti-jewish policy of your Government is wrong - would you help that Government to implement that policy?

Christianity: Lets say that Christ was the most perfect human being in the last 2000 years who taught certain precepts about love and morality. I think that the most important thing about Christ's teaching is about action: do this,do not do that. You gotta take Christianity as a teaching of action and not as a mental teaching.
Bobert is a man of action; he does help those who need help. I find it easier to follow the 'do not do that' part (except when the emotional horse gets the bit between its teeth and refuses to turn the other cheek) and struggle with the 'do that' side. Bobert would be called a Christian by many even if he does not belong to a Christian religion - see the support he can attract;I would be, and rightly so, called a pompous ass and told to take a hike.

SSS - Truth is truth their is no qualification needed - I am looking at my room door I see a door; that is an objective truth - what I feel and think about my door - its colour,shape,size etc; - is subjective truth.We can only know the truth about simple things.Think of the three blind mice examining the elephant - we don't have the extras to see the bigger picture.
You write about will but in my opinion we do not possess will we only have desires and whatever desire is strongest at a moment will usually determine your action.One side of you wants to do something and another side is afraid that you will be punished if you do it. A struggle ensues between the different tendencies and the result of this struggle is called'will'.
Desire is when you do what you want; will is when you can do what you do not want. To cultivate will start with small things and try to do them as well as you can e.g. clean & polish your shoes with controlled attention to detail make sure the soles and heels are spotless; give yourself tasks that you normally do not do; do your wife's house chores for a week with full and controlled attention on yourself and at the same time notice your thoughts and feel your different emotions as you do a task. Get to know thyself.

More about conscience:
When I gave the quote from Newman's 'Grammar of Assent' about conscience I did write that it wasn't mine. It's not the Jiminy Cricket type that I am interested in - that is useful but is limited as it is subjective and is also dependent on your cultural background.
To have a moral sense you must have an aim or direction e.g. if I am driving to work and I turn left when I know I should take a right then I am acting in a wrong way.
If you feel that an action is evil you will not do it or if you do actualise that potential you will get no pleasure from it.
A subjective man can have no general concept of good and evil.
For a subjective man evil is everything that is opposed to his desire or interests or to his conception of good.
Nobody ever does anything deliberately in the interests of evil, for the sake of evil. Everybody acts in the interest of good, as he understands it. But everybody understands it in a different way and considers his good as the only good.
Conscience in relation to emotions is the same as consciousness in relation to ideas. Consciousness can be defined as: all your knowlege connected together which relates to a particular subject - you will be aware of what you know and what you do not know about the subject.In the case of my room door I am aware that I do not know what wood it is made from;where it was made;who made it;how old it is;who designed it;how long it will last;how many doors like it were made etc; a door,or any item, has threads that lead to all the information in the world.
Conscience is to feel all that you ever felt in relation to the same person,country,house book,door or anything else together, this would be a moment of conscience and you will see how many contradictions there are in your emotions. It is an emotional moment of truth.

I just as flawed as the next person; my 'problem' is that I am aware of it; I'm on the back of the tiger and can't get off.
Blessed are they who have a 'soul'.
Peace to those who do not know that they do not have a 'soul'.
Damnation to those who know that they do not have a 'soul' and do nothing about it.
Misery to those who know they do not have a 'soul' and who are struggling to 'create' one.

Folks this isn't multi-dimensional physics most of it is common sense.

Attack the abortion message but don't ask me anything relating to the non-abortion ideas as I have spent too much time trying to formulate them and an answer will only lead to other 'doors' being opened. Take it or leave it.

A long life to you.
CD.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 07:00 PM

CD:

Bless you, my friend, and in spite of my occasional rants, I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord a long, long time ago and have made no bones about it here in the Catbox, though my testimonials are usually ignored.

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Sam L
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 01:30 PM

CD, as a reply to criticisms, all that is sort of a complicated non-reply. Explaining the difference between objective and subjective ideas of good and evil at great length does nothing to reply to the basic criticism of your posture. Lots of people feel and believe they know lots of assorted objective truths, and some sound a little more convincing, careful, and thoughtful, when they say so.

   Almost any comparison one can make with abortion tends to seem facile (even if it didn't sound like an old episode of Star Trek) because there's really just nothing else like it to compare it with. It's never really quite the same thing.

   The gist of the criticism is Who are you to decide for someone else? and unless you think you've provided a glowing illustration of a higher moral insight, I don't see how you think you've replied to that. Don't think, feel--feel the way I think you should feel. That's your answer, boiled down. Not that there's anything wrong with asking people to see your side of things, but I do think it could be more direct, and shorter.

   I'm sure Beccy is right that "judge not" is mis-used, that it doesn't mean Christians shouldn't have opinions. But it still probably means---something... ? invokes a caution, advises a degree of humility, at some point, somewhere between having no opinion, and presuming to speak for God (or deliver a general objective truth about what other people should do)... in a circumstance one is not likely to find oneself in? Personally I feel that men might back off a notch on this one, and I think it does make lots of sense to lend support to another side of an argument than what one personally feels. To me, that's just taking it more seriously than winning an argument, and wanting to be "right".

You seem to have found a comfortable corner to feel high moral sentiment about a particular issue. I allow myself to do that sometimes, too, but try to keep it to smaller, expedient things, like using turn-signals. That's something I feel pretty sure about, and feel comfortable delivering the commandment.
                                  use your turn-signals, Fred

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 07:54 PM

Fred:

Turn signals? What are they. No one uses them around these parts. I reckon the auto makers could save a bundle by not even putting them on the cars that are going to be sold within 7o miles of the Washington, D.C. area. Maybe enouff to pull the American economy out of the toilet.

Ahhh, what's the name of this thread? Oh, my God. How did we get here?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
From: Sam L
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 09:56 AM

Sorry Bobert. Is the center lane still the passing lane around there?

I'm glad I brought up expedient/moral questions because it helps me think of what I mean here and elsewhere. One could concievably oppose abortion, morally, but prefer to oppose safe and legal abortion, as the expedient choice, rather than simply outlaw it and wash one's hands, like somebody or other. I don't see where that doesn't make sense. What doesn't make sense to me is the politics of wanting to outlaw something, but make no other sort of practical effort to prevent it. Back on the thread.

   I keep getting frustrated on this point, when people seem to me to make no distinction between their moral point of view, and the real-world question of what's the moral and civilized thing to do about it. One might disagree about that choice, but it would be a good idea to at least address the difference, not just go on about the moral, as though it answered everything. It really doesn't.

I promised to shut up, but.