BS: abortion south dakota

Subject: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,wordy
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 08:13 PM

I see South dakota is to forbid all abortions, including those desired by women who have been raped or are the victims of incest. Is this not as draconian and backward as anything the taliban came up with? Is the position of women in this place any different to that of women in the worst examples of patriarchal society? And where is compassion for the poor women who are the victims of male crimes?
Will the women of America fight to retain their freedoms or will they go back to subservience?

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: curmudgeon
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 08:24 PM

For a start, boycott South Dakota.

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

S. Dakota, as well as being conservative, has agreed to be the test case to see if they can slip this measure by the Supreme Court...that is, to test whether those two "I haven't made up my mind" new members are "on board" and whether "settled law" really means anything.

They will never get it thru their heads that some issues should not BE at the whim of whoever has the most votes, but be forever a matter of personal conscience.

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

boycott S. Dakota? You mean don't go to Mt. Rushmore and stop digging for gold? What else can we DO to them? Maybe that's why they were chosen...

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 09:19 PM

Banning abortion for rape and incest is just plain stupid.

Banning abortion because a woman and a man were careless and don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions is something else.

Why can't people see the common sense to the difference?

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 09:28 PM

You know the answer to that, Martin....they 'think' they know an overriding issue. You & I may disagree with 'them', but zealousness allows a LOT of folks to stomp on other's rights in the name of righteousness.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 09:30 PM

The real fight won't happen until after Roe v. Wade is overturned and the reality sets in that the Christain Right, which it is neither, has highjacked the governemnt...

Yeah, then the tables will turn drasticaly and the orgabnizing that the anti-abortion folks have been doing won't be able to stand up to the majority, who when awakened, can bea force...

Right now everyone is sayin', "Hey, Roe won't be overturned... I mean this is America... Not friggin' Nazi Germany..."

Wanta bet???

Roe is going down!!! Guarenteed... Maybe not this year, but within 3 years it will be back to rich white women going on that "little vacation" to Mexico and poor black (and white) women getting the clothes hanger abortion in the back rooms of gas stations...

I **guarentee** this is going happen... This Supreme Court has been assembles by Bush to do just this as a reward to his scrwed up Chriatain Right base who couldn't care less if Boss Hog is hosin' them as long as Roe goes down....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 09:41 PM

Thanks, Bill D.

"They will never get it thru their heads that some issues should not BE at the whim of whoever has the most votes, but be forever a matter of personal conscience."

Absolutely right! Why should majority rule apply to personal decisions?

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 10:15 PM

Well said, BillD! Thank you!

Bobert, dammit (:-), your words have power. By making such "guarantees" you are putting that "out there" into the power of the consciousness to help bring it about; quit helping them out with all of their negativity, please?!! Yes, it is a possibility, but it does not have to be fact, esp. if we, the majority, do not give it the power of our words and beliefs.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 10:23 PM

And it ain't even "majority rule"... It's minority rule...

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Anonny Mouse
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 10:37 PM

It's a vocal, self-righteous, "I know better than you" minority that has hijacked more than a few things of late. Pretty soon you'll have Pat Robertson out in S.D. running prayer-a-thons to get more money for himself and using a pittance of it to charter a dozen buses to D.C. with placards and "murder for hire" signs. Used to be said "let one of THEM have their daughter raped or knocked up by Uncle Joe, and they'd change their tune." Y'know what? I'm not at all sure they would!

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Alba
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 11:14 PM

I am not too sure about that either Anonny.
I will not give them power by addressing their point of View.
For the simple reason I feel that I know better then they ever will about this issue for I am a woman and I have a choice and no-one elses moral standards or religious views or Court, no matter how Supreme, will ever be able to take MY choice away from me.
To me it is that simple. Really.
J

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 11:36 PM

Bobert: I mean this is America... Not friggin' Nazi Germany.

That is what a lot of people are saying, but when I list recent events here alongside the pages of the history books, this IS NAZI GERMANY, ca. 1932. The US could very well proceed along a very similar path.

Does anyone believe we don't have a few politicians every bit as ambitious as Adolph and his gang?

The majority of Germans were basically ok people, but "conservative religion" was used to break down resistance and impose a "state religion." Denial of civil rights to certain people was used to break down resistance. Appointments of "sympathetic judges" with "the right thinking" was used to emasculate the courts. Secret trials were used to eliminate "undesirables." Withdrawal, cancellation, and denial of social welfare benefits were used to eliminate objectors. Taxes favoring "the right businesses" were used to weaken other "less wanted" segments of the economy. "Emergency powers" were claimed by the politician(s) in power. Drastically increased penalties for broad ranges of crimes were imposed, in the name of "moral values" to provide a threat against objections. The work camps (prisons) were filled with "undesirables," often just to get them off the unemployment lists and make people believe things were ok.

And all the people just sat there, at each step of the process, because "it can't happen here."

Anybody see anything that doesn't show up in both lists?

John

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:29 AM

Abortion on demand has always been wrong. Abortion for medical reasons or for pregnancies resulting from a criminal act, should be allowed.
Just imagine being raped by a stranger or a relation and ending up pregnant because of it. Without the option of an abortion you would have to live for another 9 months with this reminder of your violator inside you.
No one can live by the rules in the Bible, and most of the christian fundies know that, but then they only want to live by the bits that suit them and ignore the bits they don't like.
Pick & MIx religion I call it.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 06:52 AM

Alba,

Better start your savings account now so that when yer only "choice" is to get on an airplane and go to another country where you can exercise that "choice" that you think you'll have here in the US after Roe goes down...

Johnin K,

That's what I was saying. My statement about Nazi Germany was in quotation marks talking about the folks who are in denial that Roe is going down... I know the US is on a path taken by the Germans in the 30's and that's why I know that Roe is going down and guarentee it... It was a done deal when the Bush crowd, whoes family BTW had lots of ties to the Nazis, used the Cristain Right and a bunch of lawyers to highjack and Amercian eletion... That was the beginning of the end of the US as we know it...

Roe is going down... Fir sure...

And guess what... Democracy has allready gone down...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Alba
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 07:53 AM

Nope Bobert. No saving account. For that would be accepting the unacceptable in my opinion.
I'll do as have done for a long time on this issue and become even more pro active than I already am.
Again for me it is that simple. Really.
I am as determined on the issue of a Woman's right to choose as the people who would try to strip a Woman of that right.
J

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Once Famous
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 07:58 AM

So Alba, a woman has the right to choose to be a baby killer because she screwed around one too many times and got careless, right?

That's not a right, Alba. That's not being responsible for your actions and mistakes. It's an easy way out at the expense of a life.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Alba
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:08 AM

...and the men involved in this "careless" act? What freedom do they lose Martin?

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: jacqui.c
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:12 AM

After the 2004 election I remember a fundamentalist Christian leader stating that, as 'they' had put Bush back in the White House, he must do what they wanted him to. Right now these people seem to have the power because they are able to organise their followers into going to the ballot box and there isn't sufficient cohesive agreement amongst the mostly moderate majority of the population to make a real opposition. As a result laws like this can get on to the statute books.

As Kendall has said, the concern of these people lasts until the baby is born. After that they will take no responsibility for bringing into the world an unwanted life and it is likely that those children will be more poorly provided for due to lack of money or love or both. That is of no interest to the anti-abortionists who, if they think of it at all, will blame the mother for not taking care of the child.

Maybe these people should have to put their money where their mouth is and contribut say 50% of their income to help raise the children they have effectively brought into the world.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,donuel
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:16 AM

As South Dakota goes so goes the nation over the right to abort
here comes the Supreme Court.

Out on the western plains and bad lands rides a HERO
To the rescue rides Judge Alito.


Pretty much any medical care involves "killing something".
Its time we clean house and put an end to all medical science
and its wanton killing
except for criminals, Muslims and evil doers etc.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:23 AM

Alba,

While I respect your conviction and courage, be prepared for having to fight this battle in a post-Roe era... They have the votes now and now it's just figuring out whether or not to do it gradually or quickly. That's a marketing/political issue for the radical Republicans...

But, make no bones about it, Alito tipped the scale and it won't matter how pro-active you are now but how pro-active you will be after abortion is made illegal again...

But the battle will be alot harder next time because the right wing is so well organized (and financed) that it won't be like the last time... And the press is owned by the right wing, too...

Yeah, when that battle comes, I'll be beside you but know that it's going to take more than indignation to turn the country around since the Democrats have no political (or finacial) backbone to be a real opposition party...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Alba
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 09:07 AM

Thanks Bobert.
I am prepared to do so if that is the case.
I used to get very upset when the issue arose but over the Years I decided that the best way to deal with my opinion on the issue was to quite simply walk the walk and talk the talk.
Arguement is futile when one is argueing with Fundamentalist thinking.
If any women chooses not have an abortion I support her right to that choice
If any woman chooses to have an abortion I support her right to have that choice available to her.
If a woman chooses not to use contraception I support her right not to do so.
If a woman chooses to use contaception I support her right to obtain and use the mtheod she chooses.
This issue goes way beyond the views of Religion and Ethics in my opinion.
Again I will say my views on the matter are really that simple but getting to the point were my views became defined was a tough road.
Sometimes it is easy to lose the big picture when people choose only to focus on a few pixels contained within it.
I am not of a mind to argue my position on this anymore. I have done that many times over the years and that fact has been a motovating factor in how I arrived at where I stand on this issue today
I respect others views even while disagreeing with some.
I reject shock language tactics as it serve no purpose. It is a hysteria of sorts and only indicates to me that some people nurture a rage at their inabilty to control all Womans Right to Freedom of choice.
So in my last post here on the subject I will just say that backwards is not a direction I am willing go on regarding this matter.
Everyone has an personal opinion and right to make their own choices.
Women are not excluded in that right.
Again it is really that simple in my opinion.
I have, I feel, no need for preparation. As I have, as some here know, been actively defending Pro Choice for many years now through my work outside my Music. I am grateful to that work that allowed me to gain a broader perspective on this subject.
On this issue I am and will continue to be very determined.
That is how it is for me.
Best of Wishes, as always, to all here
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: MaineDog
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 09:10 AM

"No one cares after the baby is born"? Wrong! There are lots of families out there ready to adopt unwanted babies. Many will even pay the medical and prenatal expenses of the mother. I know this for a fact, because a close relative of mine went thru this experience. She is now married with a newborn, and is very glad she did not have an abortion when she was tempted to do so, a few years ago.
MD

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

According to one US anti-abortion site, there are an estimated 1.4m abortions per year in the United States. Do you think the 'lots of families' you refer to stretches that far, MaineDog?

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 09:47 AM

As you see, there are many points of view, even among those of us who do not like the way the tide is turning.

"Abortion on demand has always been wrong. "
"There are lots of families out there ready to adopt unwanted babies."
"If any woman chooses to have an abortion I support her right to have that choice available to her."

etc......

The point, again, is that **BECAUSE** there is no agreement about the details and the proper 'limit' to individual decisions, it makes no sense for the most conservative elements to legislate some arbitrary point for everyone!
   The basic decision to accept or reject the abortion alternative, in 'almost' every case, is based on a personal belief. No one should impose an abortion on anyone who has moral/ethical/religious reservations, and no one should demand that those who honestly have different beliefs be subjected to the views of others!

ALL abortion is sad, awkward and often dangerous, and any efforts to reduce the need for them are to be commended. I don't know anyone who 'likes' the idea, but all human situations are different and it WILL be the case that women (and in many cases, their partners) will continue to resist the efforts of misguided zealots to determine, in some blanket form, what is best for everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 09:54 AM

It is almost beyond belief that the Anti -Abotion lobby do not see that a right to choose is just that. Almost.

If it were seriously about saving the lives of Children, then surely the effort would be better applied to Africa, where millions of children could be saved every year by relativly cheap and simple steps, without having to kill doctors.

If it were about applying the rules of Bible, or saving souls, how about shutting down the pig farms and prawn fisheries, as they produce 'unclean' food. Or stopping people working on Sunday?

It's about power, and control over women. If the preachers leading it realise this is another question entirley....

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: leftydee
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:17 AM

To those of you that oppose the right to choose and do not have a least one adopted child, kindly shut yer piehole. It seems you right-to-lifers are really worried about a fetus before it becomes a person but happy to let it fend for itself once it gets born. Which is less moral? Although I'm not FOR abortion, I think leaving a child to waste in poverty or in a home that doesn't want him is a far greater sin. So, put up or shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:20 AM

Alba, well-said. You know I am right there with you and we wimmin can be a Mighty Force when need be. Brings to mind one of my favourite quotes:

A woman is like a teabag; you never know how strong she is until she gets into hot water. - Eleanor Roosevelt -

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Sorcha
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:22 AM

Well, our daughter and her fella are moving out of SD.....ASAP

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:38 AM

I had an abortion at the age of 15. Both my partner and myself were both still at school and imagined, like some latter day Romeo and Juliet, we were deeply in love - maybe we were! I still believe my decision, not taken lightly, saved 3 people from a very unhappy future but the feelings of loss remain.

I have spent my adult life working with, and on behalf of, unwanted, neglected and abused children; if any of the pro-lifers could see the terrible emotional and often physical damage inflicted they may have a different sense of proportion.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:55 AM

A forced choice is not a free choice. A right to choose implies the absence of economic and social pressures that constrain that choice.

My impression is that not too much has been achieved in that direction in the USA in the years since the Wade decision. At any rate arguments about the issue on the Mudcat always seem to take for granted the overwheening presence of those kinds of pressures.

While that is the case, whether it's legal or not, you are going to continue to have an awful lot of unwanted abortions.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:12 PM

Why is it that the people most against abortion are also against open education aboout contraception?

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:16 PM

Indeed, Kevin...when our 'freedom of expression' allows zealots to stand outside clinics and harangue and intimidate potential patients, 'free choice' loses most of it's meaning.....especially when doctors are threatened and shot.

"But we are **saving the babies*"!!!

no, you are ensuring that mostly untrained and careless amateurs will be involved...you will 'save' very few babies.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Anonny Mouse
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:50 PM

This is just SOOOOO divisive, y'know? I am an advocate of choice; I am not an advocate of relentless retroactive birth control, although for a male, whoever asked about consequences, or losses of freedom is correct. The female has 9 months of her life consumed with pre-natal issues, not to mention medical risks involved.

It used to be that a very high percentage of abortions-into the 90's percentiles-were NOT because of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. I don't know if that has altered much. The thing is, a person ALWAYS has the choice NOT to terminate a pregnancy. If there is a ban, or Roe v Wade is overturned, there will be little or NO choice for many. It IS a fact that the well-to-do can travel elsewhere and will; it is also a fact that much will revert to the "back alley" coat-hanger purveyors...and then likely two deaths will result. And this will also be punitive to doctors, pharmacies, pharmacists, planned parenthood and birth control which is also in the sites of the "pro life" lobby. There are already Catholic hospitals that refuse pregnancy terminations as policy, and some conservatively owned/operated pharmacies that will refuse to dispense contraceptives. Lookit that town that the owner of Dominoe's Pizza is trying to build someplace in Florida.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:52 PM

Because, Paul, it is not truly about preventing unwanted pregnancy. It is, as Bunnahabhain said, about controlling women, pure and simple.

That is why it is not about the life of a fetus, or the life after fetushood, or the life of condemned prisoners (as in capital punishment) or the lives of people who see the world differently from us (as in war), or the lives of Mother Nature's other beings, or about preventing abortions (as in sex education and open discussions of alternatives to intercourse), or helping people become more responsible sexual beings (also as in honest sex education).

Remember how Jocelyn Elders was forced to resign when she suggested that youngsters who felt irresistable sexual urges and wanted to remain unpregnant and disease-free should masturbate? Yeah, like that. I mean, what does masturbation have remotely to do with saving the "lives" of fetus-people?

Control of women. That is the only explanation that makes sense. I wish the pro-choice mouthpieces could more effectively make that point. And "we" have that fierce need to control women in common with...guess who? Great company, that.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:56 PM

And in so far as they aren't focussing their anger on the things in society that mean that for a lot of women there doesn't seem any way of keeping their babies, they are indeed hypocrites. And no, they probably aren't in any way reducing the number of abortions - they might even be having the reverse effect.

But there's hypocrisy when people talk about "freedom of choice" as something that actually is in place, when in practice large numbers of abortions are in effect imposed on women.

It's a bit analogous to the pretence that was made that the abolition of slavery meant that equality and freedom for black Americans had been achieved.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 02:12 PM

I agree and disagree. I also do not think abortion should be a retro form of birth control. That then begs other questions. The responsibility for a woman NOT getting pregnant rests with two people: the guy and the gal. It is very difficult to locate statistics (numbers) to do with pregnancies caused by rape. Set that aside for a moment, because it is another issue in the context of this particular post. Both people involved in mutually-consented to coitus have responsibility for the act(s) and its consequences. To me, it's that simple. So, in the headlong rush to provide abortion on demand, are people going to have a look at 'responsibility' to do with pregnancies resulting from sex that both parties have agreed to? Don't BOTH parties have responsibility? To me, the fundamental issue is not about controlling women. It is about controlling BOTH people in the stage before the pregnancy. And that falls to individuals, not States.

As to rape: The following may make you shake your head and want to kill someone:

"50 - 60% of teens were molested prior to their first pregnancy
30 - 40% were victims of rape or attempted rape
the age of first unwanted sexual experience was 9.7 - 12 years of age
the average age of the rapist was 22.6 years
50% of perpetrators were family members
over 75% of the sexual assaults involved force and weapons"

That is from here.

An expression I heard today: Policies are a way of not having to think about the situation.

IMO, blanket 'laws' are similar.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 02:16 PM

Another site to read. Shocking and cogent.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 02:51 PM

all of those statistics, as many times as I have seen similar ones, are shocking and cogent....and scary.

What I read between the lines of reports like this is that, although 'individual responsibility' is, technically, the best answer, it appears that the condition of society in general does not support personal responsibility well enough...Young men get more 'points' for conquests than for restraint, even young women (and girls) learn that getting dates and attention often comes at a high price. Add to this 50,000+ years of Nature not caring HOW it reproduces, but fine-tuning us to the responses that ensure propagation, and you have the need to refrain and reduce pregnancies overridden by some pretty powerful forces!

all that wordiness says: The deck is stacked against easy avoidance of unwanted children...especially for the young, vulnerable and uneducated.

Contraception and abortion are the two ways to cope when abstinence fails, whether voluntarily or not. Many places, contraception is forbidden or seen as weakness and morally reprehensible, and thus, not easy to obtain...especially for the younger girls who are most at risk.

We are not likely to teach young people to not desire sex, so we MUST teach them how to deal with it......sadly, I don't see enough of that happening.

Abortion needs to be seen for what it is....a faulty, sad, course of last resort...to be used but not praised while we try to remove the need for it.

I have my ideas, but I doubt the world is ready for mandatory contraceptive implants for 11 year old girls and VERY strict laws regarding rape (after VERY clear warnings from age 11-12 on for young men)....

won't work? We haven't really tried yet.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:04 PM

I did leave out sterilization, which the Chinese have been trying with very mixed results. I am not ready to propose it for the populace at large yet, but it certainly might be applicable for extreme cases......gotta think.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:26 PM

Many places, contraception is forbidden or seen as weakness and morally reprehensible, and thus, not easy to obtain...especially for the younger girls who are most at risk.

It wasn't that long ago that this was true right here in the good ol' USA. Contraception was NOT available to me, as a teenager; thus I have a son who will be 36 this April, just 17 years younger than me. I wouldn't have changed having him for a minute, but there was NO alternative available then. I'd never even heard of abortion until several years later.

I used to volunteer at a Planned Parenthood. This was about 28 years ago. I remember getting so frustrated with the young women who would come to us. They would say they'd been having regular sex for a year or so and thought maybe they should come get on the "pill." The young men never came in with them, nor would they wear condoms. I would scold the girls for waiting so long to get protection and remind them, their ability to even know about the pill was thanks to the women who went before them and fought for those rights. Now there are whole generations who don't have a clue what it is like to have those choices taken away. Maybe they don't care, I don't know.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:46 PM

Sex is easy...stopping, preparing, planning and thinking are not. Sure there are ways to significantly decrease the odds of pregnancy, but they require availability, education and willingness...often of not only a girl, but also her partner...and her parents, church, school, peer group, doctor and often, in a small town, the community at large.

That's a lot of hoops to jump thru when her boyfriend is whispering "aw, c'mon, I'll be careful" in her ear.

I do think the 'morning after' pill might be a great help...if, if, if...

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:07 PM

BUSH GETS TOUGH

Front page of the Washington Post has a story of how the Bush administration is going after journalists who wrote about the huge NSA wire tapping program by using anti espionage laws.

Journalists = SPIES and as such could deserve capital punishment.
This could be the mother of all show trials brought by a dictator.

I hope the trial is public. Summary executions are done in secret.


Free speech used to include Journalists, right to free assembly, the right to petetion the government and redress complaints and the right to freedom of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:26 PM

I deeply regret that there are things like the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child here in the UK too.

Come back Molotov, all is forgiven.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:41 PM

Life is cheap.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 06:04 PM

I don't know why South Dakota wants to stop just with abortion!

- let's roll the goddamn clock right back to 1962 and get rid of sexual harrassment laws, re-segregate the want ads in the newspapers by gender, revoke the 1963 Equal Pay Act, get rid of Title VII in the Civil Rights Act & legalize sex descrimination, make sure women can't get credit cards or mortgages in their own names, require women to have two eyewitnesses to get a rape conviction in court,get women out of High School & College sport, close all the battered women's shelters, get rid of pregnancy leave and go back to firing maried women if they get pregnant- THE FRICKIN'GOOD OLD DAYS! that the Christian Right & the BuShites are pining for when they their wimmens could be kept barefoot & pregnant with the help & acquiescence of the government.

How soon some people bloody forget. George Mcovern must be in hiding out of embarrassment.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 06:07 PM

..."two eyewitnesses" usually meant she'd been raped 3 times, all of whom would claim she "asked for it".

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

One journalist's opinion on Bush getting tough with journalists.

That's what they want, Greg, you nailed it.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Sorcha
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 06:51 PM

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

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 06:53 PM

It won't get through the Supreme Court. If it does, you can't stop them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good points, jacqui, and well said.

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

Gee, I wonder if they could implement abortion retroactively?

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

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

I mean let's get real here...

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

Like what is this about???

Control, that's what...

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

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

Beam my up...

Bobertr

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

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

Men are as worried as women are.

From (gulp), FOX NEWS

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

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

kat

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or find another country...

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

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

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

Where is their "Contract with America"???

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

Like I said, Roe is going down...

Sucks, but true...

Bobert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He is not REALLY our president.

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

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

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

-Joe Offer-

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

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

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

Kat,

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

Richard,

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

Others,

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

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

Bobert

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

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

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

nick

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

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

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

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

Graham.

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

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

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

Exactly Nick.

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

If Roe goes down...Wade will follow.

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

"If the nation sins...?"

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

Assuming its a legitimate concern at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry. That should have read '1960'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would have been balls to the wall...

That sounds very uncomfortable. What does it mean?

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

McG -

balls to the wall

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

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

At maximum speed and at risk.

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

No documentation at hand for this etiology though.

John

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

I like Kat's idea.

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

Why stop there. Perhaps we should bring back castration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John

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

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

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

kat -

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

It did.

It could.

John

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

forced sterilization, alberta

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

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

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

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

kat

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

Why do people get so fucked up about sex?

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

Cluin

Culture, religion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

kat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:21 PM

What this country needs is more people who are ready, willing and able to mind their own F*****G business.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 01:57 PM

Et Tu, Larry-

Why don't YOU just move to Ireland or Iran or etc- plenty of fundamentalist theocracies out there to choose from where your views would be right at home.

Problem solved.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:56 PM

Just to make a -probably redundant - point: there is a distinct difference between castration and sterilization. Sterilizing a woman is not an equal thing to having castrated a man.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:57 PM

I think that was the point.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:48 PM

Many of you pro-choice people seem to think that the fetus has rights. I think its odd that you grant the right of life to the unborn fetus but deny the rights of the mother to control her own life.

Until you can guarantee that every child is provided with the basic needs (food, shelter, clothing and care) you have no right to insist that they live a life of misery. Is poverty something you want to impose on another human being?

Even if the child is adopted by another family, what right do you have to impose on that child and his/her birth mother, the associated emotional problems that they may face?

You are overlooking the fact that there is no guarantee that the pregnant mother will have the proper pre-natal care that she needs. Who will pay for her daily living expenses when she must leave the work place? Who will love her when she is all alone? Who will ensure that her emotional well-being is taken care of? Her emotional well-being is critical to the mental health of the unborn child she carries.

We all know that a healthy baby needs a healthy mother. What are your plans to insure the health of the mother?

Once you have all of these provisions in place, your pro-life argument might make some sense. Until then, the pro-life argument will always be another way to abuse women and children.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Peace
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:50 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Anonny Mouse
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 12:13 AM

Good post, Peace.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 12:28 AM

dianavan, I think you meant "pro-life" in your first sentence: Many of you pro-choice people seem to think that the fetus has rights.?

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Cluin
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 04:37 AM

Yes, good post, Peace. Another thing we see eye-to-eye on.

Saying the anti-abortion movement is only about controlling women is an over-simplification of the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: kendall
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 07:39 AM

Common sense tells me that abortion is seldom used as a birth control method.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,another regualr catter
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 07:49 AM

When I was a teenager I was raped and as a result I fell pregnant. I had an abortion and to this day I know I did the right thing. The baby would have been a constant reminder of the most harrowing experience of my life. Yes, some of you might have said that someone would have adopted the baby and given it a good home. But I couldn't have handled 18 years or so down the line the person finding me and asking me why I gave them up as a baby. I would then be obliged to explain to them how they were concieved and relive the whole thing again.

My body was violated and I am glad that I had the option to have an abortion. I would ahve been violated twice if another of my choices as a woman had been taken away from me.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 10:05 AM

Yes, Kat, I did mean pro-life.

Thanks for the correction.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 12:34 PM

But in cases where women have abortions because the alternative is that the child will not have the basic needs of food, shelter etc, that is not a matter of free choice.

"Pro-choice" and "pro-life" people ought to be united in ending a situation where that happens, and willing to work aongside each other towards that end. Anyone not willing to do that really has no right to use either label.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 12:44 PM

Hey I know. We should be able to take a tax deduction when we are pregnant. Let's see if South Dakota will also enact that law. It's only fair.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 09:51 AM

I think you'll find, Brian, at least in the U.S., that most of what you call the "pro-choice" folks are involved with "towards that end" of ensuring the provision of "the basic needs of food, shelter etc", while the single-issue, anti-abortion, blastula worshipping "christisn"[sic] set are far too busy pursuing their political agenda -

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 06:53 PM

Brian McGrath? That was my brother's name - you didn't know him by any chance, did you Greg?
.................................

I think that may be a Stateside thing that is less true in other places - at least it doesn't square with people I've known who've been actively involved with organisations like Life, in England.

I suspect even in the States you'd find some people in both camps who'd be doing "towards that end" stuff, and others who'd be ignoring that side of it, in favour of just hammering the enemy. And my point is that the latter sort really aren't entitled to call themselves either pro-choice or pro life.

And that the former sort ought to be able to recognise some commonality beneath the differences, and be trying to find ways of cooperating on a shared goal of ending situations where women feel that abortion is their only option, and yet one they do not want.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 07:02 PM

Sorry, Kevin- don't know where 'Brian' came from. I must be having a bad day. At least I didn't call you Ruthven.

And I'm with you about the shared goal approach.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 03:44 AM

One of Bush's top domestic policy advisors, who resigned just recently, has just been arrested for scamming Target store for thousands of dollars worth of goods. Just a hint of what Bush looks for in an advisor (my emphasis):

Allen went on to serve as the Health and Human Services secretary for Virginia, where he cemented his conservative bona fides by denying a low-income rape victim Medicaid funds for an abortion. In 2001, Bush appointed Allen to the No. 2 post at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where he promoted abstinence-only AIDS-prevention programs.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Alba
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 09:29 AM

Ah yes Kat... Allen

I wondered when I read this if Allen's decision on the Rape Victim's request for a termination was based on the same kind of theory he held regarding Aids! ABSTINENCE STOPS RAPE!

Thanks for the post. Another 'stunning' mind gone from the Bush Administration. Forgive me if I do not mourn the loss of this numb nut! Another icon of virtue and Family Values bites the dust.


Love and Light
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 09:57 AM

Well, abstinence on the part of the man would stop rape.

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: SINSULL
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 10:55 AM

I am pro-choice. The reasons have been discussed ad nauseam. Neither side is going to convince the other.

As to those thousands of eager families waiting to adopt - they are eager to adopt a healthy infant. Every major city has a foster care system filled with unwanted crack/heroin/AIDS babies, warehoused children that no one wants. And the older they get, the less likely it is that they will ever be adopted. They age out of the system and are put out on their own with $200 and no prospects.

I adopted one. Despite years of a loving, supportive family, special schools and constant mental health support, he has never been able to get past the emotional and sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of the NYC Foster Care System. His mother had neglected him. His foster mothers tortured him. At the age of eight months he was hospitalized suffering from malnutrition and covered with bruises and HUMAN BITES! The foster care worker who supposedly made weekly visits hadn't noticed any problems. He remained in foster care until he was eight - emotional abuse, neglect, anal rape, sexual molestation by men and women, horror stories.

This is how we treat those children that nobody, including their mothers, want. My son's story is not unusual. If we are going to force women to carry unwanted children to term, we have to have a system in place to give them loving, safe homes, an education that will prepare them to be self sufficient, and the respect they deserve.

I will get off my soapbox now.
SINS

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 11:36 AM

Just how far out of touch the so-called "pro-life" people are is indicated by Larry K's first post--with absurd, meaningless and plain wrong statements like "Mexico has no alleys" and ridiculous claims like 60% of the population-- (where are the alleged polls, with sources, which support this fantasy?)--- being "pro-life" (a truly Orwellian formulation).

The only thing true he says is that abortions will still be done in other states--but it still does not answer the main question--which is why shouldn't it be up to the woman to decide, without interference by the state?

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: Alba
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 11:53 AM

I don't think you were on a Soapbox Sins.
I think you had the courage to tell it like IT IS in the REAL world.
I admire you even more than I already do for your post on this topic.

Sinsull's post, for me, was gut wrenching to read. As are some of the Guests who have been brave enough to recall the horror of their experiences to help people better understand the issues at stake on this issues.
My Thanks and my Heart goes to you all.
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: abortion south dakota
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 11:54 AM

If the anti-choice (often erroneously referred to as "pro-life")were truly concerned about reducing the number of abortions as opposed to controlling women's reproductive systems they would promote fair and balanced sex education programs (that treat the subjects with respect and truly inform them) rather than brain-dead "abstinence-only" scams. They don't support them, and they ARE only interested in controlling women.

"Pro-life" is an erroneous term because it implies that those who oppose it are somehow anti-life. This is not the case. I venture to say that most "pro-choice" proponents are ANTI capital punishment, ANTI war, and are more likely to be vegetarians. Certainly the humans who committed crimes are alive, as are those who would be battlefiend enemies, and Mother Nature's other beings. Similarly, among the "anti-choice" (NOT "pro-life") you find more warmongers, proponents of capital punishment, and animal eaters. All such actions are decidedly ANTI-life.

And finally, you cannot compromise. You either endorse the right of a woman to make her own reproductive choices or you have the state makes those decisions for her. There is no medium ground. It is a binary choice, not a spectrum. Those who suggest "compromise" are content to let the state make some decisions for the woman, and do not endorse a woman's right to choose, period.

Is it totally impossible to be logical in this argument?