BS: abortion south dakota

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?