|
06 Mar 13 - 02:02 AM (#3486897) Subject: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Ebbie As I've mentioned before, I am on the online mailing list for a couple of right-wing publications so that I can see what they are saying. Today, Townhall.com presents a new tack: Rand Paul is seeking signatures in the 'pro-life' debate by attempting to get a bill passed that "Life begins at conception", thereby "in effect, bypassing Roe vs. Wade." Direct quote. I think they realize they can't over-turn R vs W- but this tactic could work. |
|
06 Mar 13 - 02:48 AM (#3486903) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Richard Bridge Arseholes. |
|
06 Mar 13 - 03:00 AM (#3486908) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: JohnInKansas Several states already have anti-abortion laws prohibiting abortions after much shorter gestation periods than specified as acceptable by Roe vs Wade (legal generally considered about 20 to 24 weeks, but can depend on fetal development which does vary). Arkansas just passed a law prohibiting any abortion after 12 weeks. The law was vetoed by the governor, who pointed out that it was unconstitutional, but the Arkansas State Senate voted to override the veto the next day. The State House still has to vote on an override. The ACLU is preparing the lawsuit to contest constitutionality. John |
|
06 Mar 13 - 06:58 AM (#3486968) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: gnu Sick B*******! |
|
06 Mar 13 - 08:48 AM (#3487015) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Bobert The angry white man party is going to go out screaming and kicking every inch of the way but they will go out... America has passed them by... B~ |
|
06 Mar 13 - 10:48 AM (#3487057) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,999 Life does begin at conception; however, viable life doesn't occur until pregnancy. The problem with that type of legislation passing would be the next logical step: declare sperm and eggs to be state property. There's the rub (as it were). |
|
06 Mar 13 - 11:10 AM (#3487063) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Life began in some slimy puddle of ooze three and a half billion years ago and has never had to begin again ever since. Now let that be the last sterile, pointless assertion of this thread. |
|
06 Mar 13 - 11:55 AM (#3487093) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Ebbie Look it up, Steve S. It's not pointless. There have been several efforts in the recent past to make aborting a pregnancy at any point a crime on behalf of the baby-to-be. If this one succeeds, it will be on the basis of a ruling that the baby is to be protected as early as the tiny blob. Roe vs Wade would be superfluous. |
|
06 Mar 13 - 12:14 PM (#3487099) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw I see the threat all right. The point I was trying to make was that what we don't need is that awful, useless, sterile, futile, inflammatory stuff about "when exactly does life begin" here in this thread. Of all conversations on any forum I've ever been on, that one is the most depressing, soul-destroying and pointless of all. |
|
06 Mar 13 - 12:17 PM (#3487101) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,999 Maybe so, Steve, but that is your view. Not everyone's view. And that is precisely what Ebbie is saying. |
|
06 Mar 13 - 12:33 PM (#3487111) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw So let's see if I have this right. You think it would be fruitful for us to discuss (again) exactly when human life begins. Great. Don't forget to tell me where you think that will get us. If we're going to discuss abortion again let's try to figure out a way towards some solutions. Let's begin by saying that ignorance, lack of sex education, denial of contraception, moralising, preaching and the belittling of women's place in the world are the very opposite of the right answers. By those criteria, the Catholic church is one of the major champions of abortion. I just said in another thread here (with a man talking red alert thrown in) that I want all women to have the unfettered right to have abortions. Unfettered means no charge, no delays, no "counselling" and no conditions. None. But I'm far more "against" abortion than any pope or Mother Teresa. I want to live in a world in which abortions are rare. Abortions are not individual failures of women or couples. They are one hundred percent always all our fault, all of us. Society's fault. So let's address all that ignorance, lack of sex education, denial of contraception, moralising, preaching and belittling. There is no other way. |
|
06 Mar 13 - 12:45 PM (#3487118) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,999 "So let's see if I have this right." You don't. As for the rest, I agree, Steve. With all of it. I think abortion should be a last resort to save a child or a mother. I strongly disagree with abortion on demand while at the same time recognizing the view you have which I think is correct. |
|
06 Mar 13 - 02:05 PM (#3487157) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: frogprince Steve, I respect your position so much, and agree with most of it so completely, but I have to disagree with you when you say "Abortions are not individual failures of women or couples. They are one hundred percent always all our fault, all of us. Society's fault." The rate at which abortions have occured, and do occur, is certainly very much society's fault, for the reasons you've indicated. But provide all the education there is to provide, make contraception readily available and let everyone know it...and there will be decent young couples who start an evening together with no intention of having sex, and end up with a pregnancy. They're not "guilty" if it happens, and society isn't "guilty" because it happens. |
|
06 Mar 13 - 02:50 PM (#3487175) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: gnu "no "counselling"" required. Hmmm... I think I think (yes, I meant that) it should be the case for women under the age of majority but it should be standardized for an entire country and such standards should be developed by the most qualified docs that can be had. If religions wanna put in their two cents, fine. Of course, this does bring up the question re the best before date. I dunno the answer but perhaps the date should be extended in the case of a minor who does not receive counselling prior to that date? |
|
06 Mar 13 - 03:34 PM (#3487195) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Sorry, I meant to say compulsory counselling, something mooted in the UK recently. I agree with counselling without moralising or preaching. Damn poor reviewing on my part. The rate at which abortions have occured, and do occur, is certainly very much society's fault, for the reasons you've indicated. But provide all the education there is to provide, make contraception readily available and let everyone know it...and there will be decent young couples who start an evening together with no intention of having sex, and end up with a pregnancy. They're not "guilty" if it happens, and society isn't "guilty" because it happens. Well that's right, but we can't exonerate ourselves as society until we know that we have done our best to educate, to make contraception freely available, to show young people how to respect others and themselves and to remove inequality. And your decent young couple would then possess the savvy to seek the morning-after pill, right? |
|
06 Mar 13 - 05:46 PM (#3487242) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Bill D Let's cut to the chase. The absolute, rock-bottom basis of most attempts to totally ban abortion is the religious notion that a 'soul' enters the zygote at the moment of conception. First, it is highly presumptuous of anyone, even if they are sure of their belief in a god, to state categorically how the 'god' works. Second, if "freedom of religion" means anything, it must include the right to NOT be religious! Therefore, there should be no compulsion to accept any specific claim about 'souls' or their creation. Third, it should be obvious that this and many other similar issues are matters of personal opinion, and should not be subject to votes. They, like hair style and sexual preference are a matter for subjective consideration. No one should be forced TO endure an abortion, and no doctor who is against abortion should be asked to perform one. Abortion is, at best, a sad and unfortunate decision and society should pursue as many **non-coercive** ways as possible to reduce the incidence, but the ultimate decision must be left to those directly involved...parents and their chosen physician. |
|
06 Mar 13 - 05:51 PM (#3487244) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Richard Bridge With all die respect, the last time the doctor has a choice about performing surgery is when he qualifies as a doctor. After that he should not be a capitalist but a servant of his patient. |
|
06 Mar 13 - 05:54 PM (#3487245) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Richard Bridge * due* - but the mis-type was amusing! |
|
06 Mar 13 - 06:42 PM (#3487273) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw no doctor who is against abortion should be asked to perform one. I think this is completely wrong. A doctor need not enter the specific field of medical care that might involve abortions if he or she doesn't want to. But once a doctor is working in that field they have an absolute moral and professional obligation to serve the patient's needs as long as the request is within the law. Otherwise they should be struck off. To allow doctors such scope would be the thin end of the wedge. You might then get general practitioners who refuse to treat overweight or smelly people, schools which refuse to have children from broken homes, dentists who refuse people who eat garlic. You want to be a doctor and you oppose abortion? There are plenty of fields of medicine you can work in that won't conflict with your horrid prejudice, so stay out of obstetrics and make yourself useful elsewhere. Look at this from the patient's point of view. They need an abortion but they run up against a doctor who refuses them "on moral grounds". What a trauma for that woman. Time is of the essence. She has been made to feel like a piece of trash and she still has to find another doctor (and you can bet your life the refuser won't make it easy). If that's the scenario you wish to justify, Bill, well I think you're seriously misguided. |
|
06 Mar 13 - 08:17 PM (#3487314) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Bee-dubya-ell So, does a doctor have a right to refuse to perform abortions on grounds of personal safety? Does the Hippocratic Oath compel him to place himself in the gunsights of the next nutcase who decides he's performing God's will by eliminating a baby murderer? The majority of OB/GYNs where I live don't perform abortions for precisely that reason. They refer abortion requests to clinics who are willing to take the risk. |
|
06 Mar 13 - 09:24 PM (#3487335) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Bill D Steve.. I take a practical view. On easpect of that is that there is no perfect answer. There ARE doctors... even OB/Gyns ..who are Catholic, and patients seek out such to share conform with their belief systems. Those who are not Catholic should be careful about which doctors they consult. There should, thus, be a system to advise potential patients about possible conflicts. Now... areas where there will be only a limited selection of doctors (very rural places) should require any doctor to pledge that they will honor the patient's preferences! Thus, Catholic doctors who refuse such limitations should limit their practice to certain venues. Now, being a practical man, I also realize that this system is far from being reality, so my overriding concern is that no laws be enacted that restrict the rights of patients to have a choice! Several states in the US have used flimsy laws to do as this thread title says and sneak in rules to make abortions almost impossible to obtain, while not specifically ruling them illegal. This must be stopped! Do you propose a system of laws and a design of a medical licensing setup which will achieve your ideal situation? (and as an aside, your metaphor about GPs refusing to treat the obese is just not relevant.. ("slippery slope" fallacy) |
|
07 Mar 13 - 12:37 AM (#3487380) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: ChanteyLass Thank you, Ebbie, for starting this thread to let us know what "the other side" is trying to do. |
|
07 Mar 13 - 05:29 AM (#3487418) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw I don't care if a doctor makes a seamless, fast, moralising-free referral to another doctor. The bottom line is that no-one, whether a doctor or "the system", should have the right to put even the tiniest obstacle in the way of a woman who wants an abortion, and that includes, crucially, a time delay of any kind. What I would object to is any doctor taking it upon himself to be obstructive or preachy. If a doctor fears for his personal safety, it's a matter for the police. Fallacy, eh? You haven't heard the murmurs in some quarters about obese people potentially being refused treatment? |
|
07 Mar 13 - 07:09 AM (#3487449) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: gnu Bill D. Very well said. |
|
07 Mar 13 - 06:43 PM (#3487735) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Richard Bridge Well said SS. |
|
07 Mar 13 - 07:28 PM (#3487752) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Bill D Steve..You are a hard guy to agree with... I **do** think that any woman **should** be able to make her choices freely... but you didn't respond to my question about how your ideal situation might be achieved. When I say I favor a practical step to get a bit closer to what we both seem to favor, you merely condemn any idea short of total agreement. Did you never hear the old saw: "50% of something is better than 100% of nothing."? I want an end to the system (at least here in the US) that allows rights that should not be messed with to be voted on and/or legislated by states, the Congress or the courts. In the meantime, we MUST be aware that there are Catholic doctors and deal with that reality. About fallacies... your particular analogy is still fallacious, even IF 'some' have murmured silly things about the obese. It is perfectly possible to make a statement that is vaguely true, but arrive at it and use it in a fallacious way. |
|
07 Mar 13 - 08:07 PM (#3487775) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Don Firth One solution that should be viable (if I can use that term in this context) is what is known as "Plan B," the "morning after pill. Birth control should be available to any woman who wants it, and should she have unprotected sex, she should have "Plan B" available as a backup. What this does, as I understand it, is prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. "Pro-lifers" object to this as merely another form of abortion, but there are two unknowns here. 1) Perhaps the ovum in question was NOT fertilized, hence not a potential person. 2) Who knows how many ova that have been fertilized fail to implant? Good sex education and available birth control should prevent the problem of unwanted pregnancies in the first place, but if all else fails, abortion should be available to any woman who wants one. If a woman is using abortion AS a method of birth control, she should be able to have the abortion, but should also receive a severe talking to and a swift kick in the butt! One thing for sure: if abortion is flat outlawed in this country, that won't stop wealthy women from taking a little vacation to somewhere where it is legal. Only the non-wealthy will be stuck with unwanted pregnancies. Don Firth |
|
07 Mar 13 - 08:21 PM (#3487779) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Greg F. You bet, Don - a real back to the future. 1950 all over again. And its ALWAYS the poor that bear the brunt. |
|
07 Mar 13 - 08:27 PM (#3487783) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw If a woman is using abortion AS a method of birth control, she should be able to have the abortion, but should also receive a severe talking to and a swift kick in the butt! Fine, Don, but it takes two to shag effectively, remember? I agree with all the rest! |
|
07 Mar 13 - 08:31 PM (#3487785) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw but you didn't respond to my question about how your ideal situation might be achieved. I respond to all manner of people all the time but I have a life to live as well. Responding to you is something that is quite frequently very low down my list of priorities, frankly. If I don't respond you are perfectly at liberty to draw whatever conclusions you like. |
|
07 Mar 13 - 08:36 PM (#3487787) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Bobert Lotta folks perhaps need a refresher on what brought about Row v. Wade... At the time the decision was very much about civil rights and opportunity... Women of means (think white here) where taking those little vacations to Mexico (wink, wink)... Women of no means were dieing in makeshift backroom abortion dens in gas stations and dry-cleaners by people who, frankly, knew ver4y little about medicine... I think that someone needs to remind the folks (mostly Republicans) that that is the way it went down and guess what??? The women who were going to Mexico were of class who now are Republicans... B~ |
|
07 Mar 13 - 08:42 PM (#3487790) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Don Firth Steve, both of the parties need a swift kick in the butt. There's a shared responsibility there which a lot of guys tend to forget in the heat of the moment. Don Firth |
|
07 Mar 13 - 09:00 PM (#3487797) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Bill D "Responding to you is something that is quite frequently very low down my list of priorities..." Oh, I'm sure... especially when I ask a hard one. You certainly can pour out long paragraphs at almost any other time ...*wry grin* "... but I have a life to live as well." I'll take that as a "no, I can't think of how to actually make it all work." As I said... you are hard to agree with. |
|
07 Mar 13 - 09:13 PM (#3487800) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Take it how you like. I don't know what makes you think your posts are so important that you can demand responses from specific people. Post and be damned. If anyone wants to take you up, great. You are incredibly woolly and patronising. Especially patronising. |
|
07 Mar 13 - 10:06 PM (#3487822) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Elmore This has to be deja vu. A bunch of guys squabbling over women's reproductive rights. Am I back in the fifties? |
|
07 Mar 13 - 10:16 PM (#3487825) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Bill D Steve... My posts are no more...or less..important than anyone else's. I didn't "demand", I asked a question. You have taken twice as long ridiculing my posts as it would have taken to give an answer... Ok fine.. so be it. I'll still argue for women's rights to choose, whether you think I am too conservative on the topic or not. |
|
08 Mar 13 - 08:19 AM (#3487974) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw I tend to avoid your posts if possible because of your excessive and tiresome use of capitals, dots, dashes, spaces, asterisks, bold and speech marks. It makes you look patronising, didactic and wholly distrustful of our ability to understand what you're saying. So if I don't answer one of your precious points it will be because I gave up the will to live before I reached that point in your post. Hope this helps. |
|
08 Mar 13 - 09:27 AM (#3488002) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Greg F. Am I back in the fifties? Not quite yet, Elmore, but just give it time, just give it time. |
|
08 Mar 13 - 10:10 AM (#3488025) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Bill D Very strange, Steve. What you have recently been remarking on is my reasoning and analysis. In the 3 major posts I made on the current topic, beginning with 06 Mar 13 - 05:46 PM, I used very few speech marks, and those only for emphasis, to emulate as closely as possible how I would talk. If you interpret that as patronizing, I suggest you are going out of your way to find fault. You did reply to the content, with no remarks about style. Now I am informed that my style is your major complaint. In 15 years, no one else that I can remember has been put off by it. In deference to your delicate sensibilities, I write this with no embellishment, but with an admitted modicum of patronizing. My post of 06 Mar 13 - 05:46 PM, was not specifically directed at you. Because a post in an open forum is for all to read, I will continue to compose my thoughts in my standard style. It will not be a terrible loss if you choose to avoid and ignore them. Somehow, I will manage to carry on. |
|
08 Mar 13 - 10:30 AM (#3488035) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw A terrible loss to whom? Why don't you just do your own thing, quit the patronising and give out what you think from the hip? I am very mindful of how your approach, for example, makes pete ten times worse and gives him succour. Every time I see one of your posts full of your flowery embellishments I think you think we're all pete. Like everybody else round here, I pick up on points that I feel I have something to say about. There is nothing more annoying than someone telling me I didn't answer their points. If I've picked up on random things you've said it's because I felt I had something to say. If I don't pick up, it's because I have to do the shopping/cooking/learn tunes/go for a kip. Or have nothing to add or that I agree but don't feel the need to do a me-too post. Get over it. |
|
08 Mar 13 - 11:00 AM (#3488050) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Bill D I'm totally over it... I did suspect that your disapproval of how I conversed with pete was at the root of your attitude toward me. I still think I could talk to him in person, even though I disagree with him. Though I usually agree with you on substance, I doubt we'd get along. Very strange. "give out what you think from the hip" I thought I was! I just don't think that insulting folks is part of being candid. ----------------------------------------------------------- YOU need to get over my *flowery embellishments * ;>) bye... |
|
08 Mar 13 - 11:06 AM (#3488056) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link i had not even joined this post yet steve.i,m sure you can more or less guess what my opinion is .maybe you are not up to a discussion with bill even though he is as generally liberal on the subject as you , so you try to broaden it? |
|
08 Mar 13 - 11:43 AM (#3488073) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Ebbie Let's just close this thread... |
|
08 Mar 13 - 01:58 PM (#3488126) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Elmore Amen. |
|
08 Mar 13 - 04:35 PM (#3488167) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Whether Bill is as liberal as me is not exactly beside the point (I don't really know what "as liberal" is supposed to mean, frankly - I'd rather define myself differently, if I really have to define myself at all). I find that patronising, quasi-avuncular, sneery attitudes get in the way of good debate. Let's be straightforward, put our points, not demand responses from particular individuals (we're not debating in the Oxford Union here) and see what happens. As for you, pete, you appear to understand nothing about anything, but you already know I think that so I won't bother saying it. Oops... And close the thread? Now how many times have I seen that failure of courage expressed on abortion threads... |
|
08 Mar 13 - 09:07 PM (#3488257) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Ebbie "And close the thread? Now how many times have I seen that failure of courage expressed on abortion threads..." Steve, you are missing it- it is not a failure of courage. I suggested closing this thread not because of the subject but because you are attacking a participant. |
|
08 Mar 13 - 09:26 PM (#3488258) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Bobert I don't much want to fight with fellow Catters but if Eb wants this thread closed then close it 'cause ol hillbilly loves her... BTW, I wish all the baby lovers loved 'um half as much after they were born than when they were residing in variuos stages in mommy's tummy... B~ |
|
09 Mar 13 - 08:57 AM (#3488353) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw I need the participant I am "attacking" to stop being patronising and condescending (which is precisely his way of attacking). He has a history of this in other threads. He is far from being the guru of all things he seems to profess to be. I tend to be fairly direct when I don't like what's going on. If that's a fault, well that's me. I would heartily welcome a return to a straightforward exchange of points. Thank you. |
|
09 Mar 13 - 09:41 AM (#3488364) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Jeri Virtual thread closure in effect: If you think it should be closed, don't open it If you are stupid enough to open it, don't bitching about it to the world. As in "I think this thread is shit and should be closed, but as long as I'm here, I'll just add to the shit..." We don't close threads because they're shit, because every now and then, a little blue flower grows out of the shit. Sometimes not, and it's yellow instead,or it's a stupid pine tree. Sometimes, it's just shit, but you keep walking around it, and eventually it sinks into the ground. We don't close threads because someone gets their panties in a bunch over it. If that were a valid reason to close, I'd get rid of every thread about politics, religion, or what sort of behavior is advisable around small wild animals. Some people try way harder than they have to to be assholes. It's the internet. Read the comments on YouTube, and you'll realize that some of those attention-starved hate whores* are here. It's just the way things are. If you like fighting with them, you're as much of an asshole as they are. Maybe more, since you're ripe for them or anyone like them who comes along next time. *That wasn't meant to be about Rand Paul. (If he's the future of the "party of 'stupid'", we're gonna have to come up with an adjective.) |
|
09 Mar 13 - 09:47 AM (#3488369) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Oi, I like pine trees. :-) |
|
09 Mar 13 - 09:51 AM (#3488370) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Jeri Oh. That explains it. ;-) |
|
09 Mar 13 - 10:04 AM (#3488375) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Jeri As for the subject... When life begins has never been in question. Roe v. Wade was about a woman being able to get an abortion until a fetus is viable. No debate on "when life begins". But we have an awful lot of "life" inside us that can't become a person and can't live outside our bodies. Which matters mostly to Republicans and other parasites. |
|
09 Mar 13 - 11:10 AM (#3488398) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw It's quite interesting that many of those who oppose abortion because of the sanctity of life also support the death penalty. |
|
09 Mar 13 - 12:33 PM (#3488437) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,999 It's equally interesting that many people who like jello don't really care for peanut butter. |
|
09 Mar 13 - 12:42 PM (#3488440) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Ebbie I too like pine trees. :) My idea of heaven used to be living alone in a mountain cabin set in and surrounded by a dense forest of conifers. Then I learned to love people and discovered that I need them. :) |
|
09 Mar 13 - 01:17 PM (#3488460) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Are you sure it wasn't the mozzies? |
|
09 Mar 13 - 07:17 PM (#3488495) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Don Firth I find it fascinating that frequently the "pro-lifers" who are most opposed to abortion are also opposed to such things as welfare for dependent children or, God forbid, single mothers. Get 'em born, then to hell with them! ======= I understand that Sarah Palin thought Roe vs. Wade had to do with a discussion between General George Washington and his men over how best to cross the Delaware River. Don Firth |
|
09 Mar 13 - 09:04 PM (#3488525) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw I will not use the term "pro-life." That is an entirely inaccurate way of describing the people involved. The only correct term is anti-abortion. It accurately describes their stance without obfuscation or euphemism. "Pro-life" is utterly hypocritical. I don't know anyone who is anti-life. "Pro-choice" is a good way of describing those humane people who support women's right to decide what they do with their own bodies. "Pro-abortion" would be entirely inaccurate. We have a very high abortion rate in most parts of the world because of religions opposing sex education, banning contraception and belittling women. By that measure, the Catholic church, to give one example, is just about the most pro-abortion organisation on the planet. By promoting ignorance and dissing birth control, the Catholic church is a champion of abortion. I actually think that is quite deliberate. The people who are pro-choice are actually the people who genuinely oppose abortion, in that their philosophy, if employed, would reduce abortions drastically. Most pro-choice people I know want equality for women, good sex education and freely-available contraception and contraception advice. If that were enacted, we would cut the numbers of abortions spectacularly, without preaching and without moralising at women. |
|
10 Mar 13 - 03:44 AM (#3488584) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: ragdall Funny you should mention this. As I was driving through a major intersection on Thursday, there were several people standing on a corner sidewalk holding full colour posters, about three feet (one metre) high, photos of aborted fetuses. I'd heard of people doing this, but had never seen it before. I can't imagine it brought a lot of warm fuzzy feelings toward the people holding up the photos, or support for their cause. rags |
|
10 Mar 13 - 07:13 AM (#3488636) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,kendall Is it true that someone asked President Bush to define Roe v Wade and his answer was "That's the decision George Washington had to make to cross the Delaware." |
|
10 Mar 13 - 09:40 AM (#3488693) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw As I was driving through a major intersection on Thursday, there were several people standing on a corner sidewalk holding full colour posters, about three feet (one metre) high, photos of aborted fetuses. I'd heard of people doing this, but had never seen it before. I can't imagine it brought a lot of warm fuzzy feelings toward the people holding up the photos, or support for their cause. They should have been arrested on public order charges. |
|
10 Mar 13 - 11:17 AM (#3488731) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Bill D Kendall.. Don Firth used that line 4 posts above. |
|
10 Mar 13 - 11:33 AM (#3488739) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Greg F. Yeah, but its a GOOD line.......... |
|
10 Mar 13 - 04:50 PM (#3488868) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Don Firth The Roe vs. Wade gag wasn't original with me, I just passed it along. I guess one could say it's entered the folk process. Bears repeating, often. Don Firth |
|
10 Mar 13 - 07:25 PM (#3488925) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link "..what women do with their own bodies...." not to mention the body of the baby inside them ! |
|
10 Mar 13 - 07:32 PM (#3488927) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: kendall Oh yeah? well I was with Washington.And, he was NOT standing up in that boat! |
|
10 Mar 13 - 07:40 PM (#3488932) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: kendall I don't know how I missed that post by Don, not sure why Bill had to comment on it. Commenting on the obvious adds little to the discussion. \Jeri, you hit the nail on the head..again. |
|
10 Mar 13 - 08:33 PM (#3488940) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Bill D Kendall- I just was reading a couple old joke and limerick threads where the same ones were posted 3-4 times. I guess I was just being too sensitive.... and I suppose this post should be "no comment" ;>) |
|
10 Mar 13 - 10:04 PM (#3488962) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw "..what women do with their own bodies...." not to mention the body of the baby inside them ! Well pete, it's their baby, it's in their body, not yours, mine, or any other man's. What right do you suppose you have to tell her what to do? You speak from the luxury of being a bloke. How easy it is for you to pontificate to women from that position! How easy for you to get all judgemental about the circumstances of the pregnancy she no longer wants, to go all broad-brush and ignore individual dilemmas, without knowing the facts of individual cases. Tell me, pete: what does your particular brand of faith teach about contraception, birth control in general, the promotion of good sex education, the promotion of equality for women? Why don't you just quit your lazy sloganising and actually put some thought into what you are proposing for real, live human beings? |
|
10 Mar 13 - 10:09 PM (#3488964) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Huh? That first line was meant to be in italics. [there was a dot instead of closing bracket in both instances... fixed] |
|
11 Mar 13 - 02:55 PM (#3489223) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link i got no problem with birth control steve.i have no problem with sex ed either in principle.in fact if poeple were fully informed of the personhood of the unborn they would think twice about killing the baby.and before you start screaming about emotive language ,i suggest you clean up your own backyard first. |
|
11 Mar 13 - 03:02 PM (#3489228) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: kendall Bill D, no problem. |
|
11 Mar 13 - 05:07 PM (#3489278) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw No problem "in principle"? What does that mean? What kind of "sex ed" do you advocate then? I'll tell you what I advocate. "Sex ed" that is so good that no-one would need to agonise over the "personhood" of the baby, still less kill it. Details on request, though I've trotted it out several times before. Now I believe that my recipe for good "sex ed" would reduce abortions to next to nothing. That would be rather inconvenient for the likes of fundamentalists such as yourself, as you'd then have one less moralistic stick to beat us with. Religion and rotten education can share the blame equally for abortions, pete. |
|
11 Mar 13 - 06:24 PM (#3489308) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Greg F. personhood of the unborn Oxymoron. Or just more fundagelical blather. |
|
11 Mar 13 - 07:12 PM (#3489328) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Well, it's pete's way of being politically correct. Either that or it just saves him ink in that he doesn't have to say "boyhood or girlhood of the unborn". The hypocrisy of his stance is that fundamentalism in religion, such as he preaches himself, is exactly what is responsible for high rates of abortion. Fundamentalism and evangelism support ignorance (as abundantly revealed by any of pete's ludicrous utterances about science, if you've ever seen any of them), they oppose proper sex education, they teach that contraception is wrong and they treat women as second-class citizens, fit only to be moralised at. Sensible people know exactly how we can humanely reduce abortion without driving women to the back streets, as pete would have it, and without pontificating to and moralising at them, as pete has just done. |
|
06 May 13 - 03:42 AM (#3512011) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Marionette Hicks Until the true majority in our civilized society cease to allow the fundamental extremist on both sides of this issue to dictate the absolutist terms by which it is resolved, a comparable solution will never see the light of day. Until we can come to terms with what should dictate the middle ground that defines the border (like it or not), which distinguishes our individual rights from our civilized responsibilities; then the extremist will continue to dictate their outrageous absolutist terms. We live in a complex world, which grows more complex each day; requiring us to make decisions equally complex. To seek by some law to limit an individual the right to make those decisions would be unjust. However, to grant someone by law the absolute proprietary rights over the life of another would be equally unjust. To apply Solomons proverbial rule of splitting such a law down the middle seems the only just and comparable solution. The word fetus (Latin: offspring) is used today to describe the growing organism from the beginning of the third month of its life to the moment of birth. At approximately four and a half to five months, the fetal movements become pronounced enough to be felt by the expectant mother. This was formerly known well before even the pre-abortion era as the "quickening", and was widely accepted by both a medical and social consensus to be the moment when life entered the new body. Four and a half months would satisfy that proverbial rule, if for no other reason than to grant each an equal share of common ground. Every act prior would be deemed lawful, while every act after must be deemed "murder". |
|
06 May 13 - 12:08 PM (#3512139) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: dick greenhaus Just to point out that, legally, Roe v. Wade is as much a constitutional guarantee as is the right to bear arms. |
|
06 May 13 - 02:24 PM (#3512224) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,OK Hicks Although, I like yourself would agree that the Right to Privacy should be deemed a constitutional right, the U. S. Constitution does not guarantee an enumerated "express" right to privacy. However, it does contain the "express" right" to keep and bear arms. The Roe v Wade decision was not based on an enumerated constitutional guarantee, it is solely based on the courts interpretation of other "express" rights set forth in our constitutions "Bill of Rights". Such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the 9th Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people", as well as; the "Liberty Clause" set forth in the 14th Amendment as it was defined by Justice McReynolds when he wrote in the courts 7-2 decision in the case of Meyer v Nebraska.: "While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Constitutional interpretation has long remained a highly controversial issue since the very outset of our nation, and for all intents and purposes; will most likely remain as such throughout our nations history. Until a lawful definition of life is addressed, or there is a constitutional amendment that "expressly" guarantees the right of abortion, it will forever remain an issue of infinite controversy before our the courts. |
|
06 May 13 - 03:12 PM (#3512261) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Hey...Mother's Day is coming up soon!....so, for a Mother's Day present, every mom should get their daughter a free gift certificate for a free abortion! Something wrong with that??? GfS |
|
06 May 13 - 05:22 PM (#3512300) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: frogprince Too bad your granny didn't think of that, Gfs. |
|
06 May 13 - 05:54 PM (#3512311) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Greg F. it will forever remain an issue of infinite controversy before our the courts. I mis-read that first time as "infantile" controversy - but maybe that's not so far wrong after all about both the object of the controversy as well as the participants. |
|
06 May 13 - 07:41 PM (#3512367) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST Although, I did neglect to delete "the" when I replaced it with "our", I would never use such a term when addressing such a serious issue. However, I must confess that I do personally find fundamental extremists views to often be quite "infantile" in nature. Having spent nearly four decades tracking and exposing the human rights atrocities associated with the modern day institution of International Slavery, I have learned that viable solutions can only become relevant if one sticks to addressing the substantive issues at hand. Especially, when the policies concerning the issues are being dictated by the pseud-intellectual outliers that far to often taut fundamental extremism as a just cause. Abortion is one of the rare issues in a civilized society that finds Civil Rights and Human Rights justifiably and sincerely at odds with one another, and is an issue with far to serious of consequences to be addressed from such a dismissive and petty perspective, no matter how true it may be. Even though I must admit I often find myself tempted to do so. |
|
06 May 13 - 07:53 PM (#3512377) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Bobert Yes, GfinS, let's force all those children to be born to women who either don't want them or can't afford them... Sounds like Big Brother, to me... B~ |
|
06 May 13 - 08:24 PM (#3512387) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Abortion is one of the rare issues in a civilized society that finds Civil Rights and Human Rights justifiably and sincerely at odds with one another Well that's an interesting point, but you seem to be implying (do correct me) that civil rights equals woman and human rights equals foetus. I think the boundaries are so blurred as to make the distinction almost useless. I also think that the debate about "when life actually begins" is futile and depressing. We are going at this from entirely the wrong angle. The world we live in consists of people who (once you've discounted lunatics and idiots) are 100% against abortion. The distinction between so-called pro-choice and pro-life (ugh) is utterly bogus. You will not meet a single sane person on earth who thinks abortion is a good thing. You know, we all have that very strong conviction in common. But we are stupid enough to completely miss that as our glaringly-obvious (and only possible) starting point. We all hate abortion. No-one loves abortion. Abortion is a failure every time. Stop me when you cease to agree. Next stubborn fact - before you need an abortion, you have to get pregnant, and you have to not want that pregnancy. So let's accept that we don't want to go down the road of failure, the one that ends in an abortion clinic. Let's work out, without religion, without moralising, how we can help people to not get pregnant when they're not ready (and I said people, not women). Let's talk about education for self-respect. Let's talk about social equality. let's talk about contraception and responsible family planning. Let's get every teacher in every school involved in good socialisation of children ("I don't don't social stuff - I'm the physics specialist" - sack that man!). Let's educate parents. Let's keep religion strictly out of it. Religion is the champion of abortion. Religion deals in the ignorance and silly rules that will keep the abortion numbers high forever. The Pope and Mother Teresa are abortion's greatest friends. They preach ignorance in schools and they ban contraception. They forget that real live human beings love to shag! |
|
07 May 13 - 05:45 AM (#3512498) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw don't do |
|
07 May 13 - 11:35 AM (#3512597) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Ebbie Well put, Steve Shaw. Reasonable people will agree with every word. |
|
07 May 13 - 12:31 PM (#3512607) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: dick greenhaus "The Roe v Wade decision was not based on an enumerated constitutional guarantee, " True---just as it's true of every amendment. Still as binding as any other Constitutional provision (unless it's amendeded or re-interpreted by the Supreme Court. |
|
07 May 13 - 12:39 PM (#3512615) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Richard Bridge What is it with these "hand on the ha'penny" idiots? Why do they hate people so? |
|
07 May 13 - 02:36 PM (#3512662) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Shaniqua Jones Spoken like the truly delusional sociopathic adolescent Liberal Nazi that you expose yourself and those who think like you to be Steve. Now run along and cheer on your beloved hero Gosnell before he is put to death by our incarcerated Brothers for butchering not only hundreds if not thousands babies, but the women in the same fashion as those butchered before Roe v Wade. Gosnell is but the tip of the despotic multibillion dollar abortion slaughter industry. There are far more like him carrying out their Democratic Nazi style racialist genocide on our people in every one of our Black Communities. The very communities where the loving liberal democraps build the vast majority of their butcher shops of loving kinetic compassion. All with the full blessing of pasty faced self-aggrandizing little white boys @ girls like yourself (terminology gives that away), as well as The Democratic Party, Planned Parenthood and the Pro-Choice (no choice) movement. I found the phraseology you used in an early post to be profoundly ironic and equally telling, in that it so closely mirrored those I have read many times before. Those used over 150 years ago in America. "it's their baby, it's in their body, not yours, mine, or any other man's. What right do you suppose you have to tell her what to do? You speak from the luxury of being a bloke. How easy it is for you to pontificate to women from that position!" "it's their property, it's their slave, not yours, mine, or any other man's. What right do you suppose you have to tell them what to do with their property? You speak from the luxury of preaching from the sanctity of your pious pulpit. How easy it is for you to pontificate to us from that position!". Who the hell do you and those like you think you truly are, to so flippantly proclaim that anyone should hold the proprietary rights over another's wellbeing, much less their life. How easy it seems to be for those of a Slavers mentality to reduce the worthiness of another's life to that of calling them an "It", to lessen the value of one so much as to deny them of any value worth more than what another might afford them. A women has every right to the choices concerning her own body, the problem is that it is not her body that's being sacrificed for no other purpose than a matter of self-serving convenience. Before the vast majority of women (not all) ever reach the door of an "Abortion Clinic" they have made many choices concerning their own body, and those choices were by their need to be there; admittedly bad ones. Abortion for so many of these women is no longer their "Choice" alone, it has become nothing more than another groups justifiable social excuse for them making so many bad ones. Where are those like yourself and the Pro-Choicers when it comes to speaking up for the women who spend a lifetime confronting the tormenting anguish of post-partum depression that follows so many after such an act? Where are the so called do-gooder services from Planned Parenthood for these women? Why do you turn a deaf ear to their voices once your mission is accomplished? "In June 1969, Norma L. McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child. She returned to Dallas, Texas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped in order to obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas law allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest). However, this scheme failed because there was no police report documenting the alleged rape." To this day Norma remains profoundly thankful that her attempt failed, and testified before Congress to that affect. She is today one of the most profound voices in opposition of the decision made in her favor under her court given alias of Jane Roe. If the so called Pro-Lifers really want to stop abortions, then hold up signs and scream what the Liberal Democraps are saying in their brand of "Double Speak", "Thank you for making the "Choice" to get rid of that worthless piece gutter trash garbage before it drains our wallets and pollutes our streets". They'd have to hold a gun to the head of a Sister to even get her near one of their genocidal butcher shops. |
|
07 May 13 - 03:27 PM (#3512678) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,OK Hicks Richard...KEEP YOUR HAND ON YOUR HA'PENNY I haven't heard that in many a year now, not since I was stationed overseas. It does bring back very fond memories of an old Irish rascal and friend of mine from county Kent by the name of Ben McManigan; who I fondly called "Twin Ben". It was in fact the first song I thought of when I learned of his passing in 95. It sure brought back a real hankering for the Sweeps and enough Guinness to set a record while gagging on one of Bens' old Capstans. Thanks for the truly fond memory, for what it's worth. |
|
07 May 13 - 03:34 PM (#3512687) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: John P In the US, our Constitution states that we shall not make any laws respecting the establishment of a religion. Since 99.999% of the people are and arguments I've heard from from anti-abortion crowd are based on religion, I have to conclude that anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional. These laws also, as has been noted, run afoul of what is generally believed to be a right of privacy. We don't need to talk about when life begins. It really doesn't matter to whether or not anti-abortion laws are legal. It's just playing the game of the people who want to control other people for religious reasons. Why don't they get the concept of JUST LEAVE US ALONE!!! Why do they bleat so much about the land of the free and then spend so much time and so many millions of dollars trying to limit the freedoms of our citizenry? |
|
07 May 13 - 04:13 PM (#3512709) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,OK Hicks (unless it's amended or re-interpreted by the Supreme Court.) Very true Dick, but there in lies the rub. Since 9/11 the court has gotten very wishy-washy in regards to their consistency on issues concerning the scope of "Right to Privacy", which is why I think their has been such a concerted effort toward calling for a reinterpretation of the original ruling. I grow more concerned everyday that no matter which side one might take on this issue, it will never be resolved as long as we allow it to be used like a political football, and leave it to those who espouse their fundamentalist extremes to set the terms for a solution. Without a solution it will forever divide us as a people, and if history has taught us anything; it is nothing good can come of such a festering dilemma. |
|
07 May 13 - 04:14 PM (#3512711) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Ebbie This is what Steve Shaw said. Is there ANYONE here who disagrees with a word of it? "The world we live in consists of people who (once you've discounted lunatics and idiots) are 100% against abortion. The distinction between so-called pro-choice and pro-life (ugh) is utterly bogus. You will not meet a single sane person on earth who thinks abortion is a good thing. You know, we all have that very strong conviction in common. But we are stupid enough to completely miss that as our glaringly-obvious (and only possible) starting point. We all hate abortion. No-one loves abortion. Abortion is a failure every time. Stop me when you cease to agree. "1. So let's accept that we don't want to go down the road of failure, the one that ends in an abortion clinic. 2. Let's talk about education for self-respect. 3. Let's talk about social equality. 4. let's talk about contraception and responsible family planning. 5. Let's get every teacher in every school involved in good socialisation of children ("I don't do social stuff - I'm the physics specialist" - sack that man!). 6. Let's educate parents. 7. Let's keep religion strictly out of it. |
|
07 May 13 - 04:32 PM (#3512724) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Well, Shaniqua Jones, thanks for the utterly unfocussed polemic. After all that I haven't a clue where you stand (except that you think I'm a Nazi). I should like to ask you a straightforward question, then a supplementary or two. Do you think abortion is a good thing or not? If not, what do you think we should do to reduce the horribly high figures? Pass a law? Make legal abortions even harder to get? Do you think that that will ever give us a world in which abortion is hardly an issue? It's all been tried, Shaniqua Jones, and it don't work. They say the definition of insanity is to keep on doing the thing that fails over and over again. I'm trying to think again about all this. You could try the same, once you get over your tirades against white blokes (I should like to remind you that neither being white nor being a bloke necessarily makes me a bad person, in the same way that whatever your colour and gender attributes are make you a good one). I have some advice. Keep your head. You just lost it there and it made you look stupid. |
|
07 May 13 - 05:11 PM (#3512736) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: frogprince Unless I'm "hearing" completely wrong, Shaniqua's position is that abortion should absolutely never be legal, under any circumstances whatever. We've lived in a world like that in the past; I don't know that I can even empathize with someone who wants to go back there. |
|
07 May 13 - 05:16 PM (#3512738) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: John P it will never be resolved as long as we allow it to be used like a political football, and leave it to those who espouse their fundamentalist extremes to set the terms for a solution This isn't really what's happening. Most of us just want to be left alone to get on with our lives. The fundamentalist extremists on this issue are all in the anti-abortion camp. The only reason it's a political football is because the anti-abortion camp keeps trying to pass laws about what other people can do with their own bodies. There is no balanced "both sides are at fault" here. Why do you think there is? Are there pro-abortion fundamentalists telling people that they have to have abortions? Are there pro-abortionists telling people that not having an abortion is an offense against God, so we need to make a law to make sure we all follow God's rules? |
|
07 May 13 - 06:00 PM (#3512745) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Unless I'm "hearing" completely wrong, Shaniqua's position is that abortion should absolutely never be legal, under any circumstances whatever. Then Shaniqua is a true champion of abortion too, to stand proudly alongside the likes of the Pope and Mother Teresa. True champions of abortion are those people who prescribe "solutions" that do nothing save keep the numbers high. But they want their abortion with spice: infection, bleeding to death, sterility and agony for women will do nicely for starters. Naturally, they'll tell you that they're really on women's side. |
|
07 May 13 - 07:58 PM (#3512792) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,OK Hicks "The fundamentalist extremists on this issue are all in the anti-abortion camp." The parameter's for fundamental extremism that I make reference to are those set forth in the actual SCOTUS decision, which is what this thread is titled to be about, I do not venture into the realm of my beliefs nor anyone else's. The Court asserted that the government had two competing interests (thus two sides to the issue)– protecting the mother's health and protecting the "potentiality of human life". In the second rehearing of the case the court followed its earlier logic stated at the conclusion of the initial hearing of the case. The Court stated that during the first trimester (up to 12 weeks), when the procedure is more safe than childbirth, the decision to abort must be left to the mother and her physician. There are those on both sides of this issue that seek to by-pass the 1st trimester parameter set forth in the ruling. Agree with it or not, or like it or not; there are those on the Civil Rights (Pro-Choice?)side of this issue who advocate for the abortive rights of women to extend through the full term of the pregnancy. While others (our current POTUS included)advocate for that right to be extended to include live births resulting from failed abortions. While there are some who are now ethically advocating for the rights of mothers to allow for the euthanizing of unwanted children up to the age of 3 years and beyond. In an article recently written by Pro-Choice advocates and medical ethicists Alberto Giubilini, Francesca Minerva published in the Journal of Medical Ethics by Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at Oxford University, and entitled "After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?", in which they argue: Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are "morally irrelevant" and ending their lives is no different to abortion "The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual."..."Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons but neither is a 'person' in the sense of 'subject of a moral right to life"..."We take 'person' to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her." This was defended by the editor Prof Savulescu in a British Medical Journal blog, where he stated that arguments in favor of killing newborns were "largely not new". Now I'm not sure where you draw the line concerning fundamental extremism, but my conscience could never extend it to include or excuse such limits. |
|
07 May 13 - 08:36 PM (#3512803) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST "You could try the same, once you get over your tirades" Wow Steve, after reading the rambling ranting diatribe you spew in most of your post, perhaps you should take a big dose of your own advice before someone mistakes "Stupid" as your permanent middle name. |
|
07 May 13 - 08:41 PM (#3512804) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw There are very good reasons (once you have a law permitting abortion) why you must extend the right to way beyond the first three months of pregnancy. Even women who are educated in such matters may not realise they are pregnant within three months. As things stand, If you discover you're pregnant at ten weeks you will find it almost impossible to get the medical attention and bureaucracy sorted out before twelve weeks. A twelve-week rule would be tantamount to telling women they can rarely get a legal abortion (which is the whole dishonest point, of course). I have little respect for the anti-abortion lobby, but I'd have a bit more if they at least went about their crusade in honest fashion. They oppose abortion, so that should be their unwavering stand, not forever chipping away at getting a week off the limit here and there or making the medical conditions more stringent. You will not reduce abortion numbers by harassing women in this way. You drive abortion underground and that results in untold misery. Abortion must be freely available on demand, and, at the same time, as a society we must address the root causes of unwanted pregnancies and help people to avoid them. So who's more anti-abortion, me or the Pope? |
|
07 May 13 - 08:42 PM (#3512805) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Ah, the joys of anonymity... |
|
08 May 13 - 12:03 AM (#3512847) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Angela Galbraith "There are very good reasons (once you have a law permitting abortion) why you must extend the right to way beyond (?) the first three months of pregnancy. Even women who are educated in such matters may not realise they are pregnant within three months. As things stand, If you discover you're pregnant at ten weeks you will find it almost impossible to get the medical attention and bureaucracy sorted out before twelve weeks." That's some what of an odd and uniformed observation on your part. Especially when our on countries NSH statistics clearly state that 89% of abortions were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation; 67% were at under 10 weeks. I guess our bureaucracy is far more efficient, and the women of the UK are far more intelligent than you give us credit as being, or perhaps we are just far better informed, and just more intelligent than you? |
|
08 May 13 - 01:09 AM (#3512856) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Ever notice that all those who are FOR abortion, have already been born??? Ever notice, that those same people avoid personal responsibility for their actions? Ever notice that Women are supposed to have the corner on 'intuition'...and want control over their own bodies......how come they can't keep their legs closed to someone their intuition should have told them was a flaky asshole??? and to remedy it, something has to die??? Just a thought........... GfS |
|
08 May 13 - 05:19 AM (#3512900) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Richard Bridge Steve Shaw is right. How anyone can assert that a 33% reduction in abortion availability is anything other than an attack on women baffles me. And of course the most vulnerable are those least likely to be able to get within a 12 or 13 week time limit. Women should have abortions if they want them. FFS, you are as offensive as ever. |
|
08 May 13 - 09:03 AM (#3512982) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw I acknowledge what you say as a correction to my somewhat outdated opinion, Angela. However, if you look at the statistics, there has been a vast improvement in the last ten years in getting abortions carried out early. That is excellent. And I'd point out that 89% of abortions within 13 weeks still means 2000 abortions a year after that. I'm guessing (correct me) that the bulk of those will be young women from poorer backgrounds. And the bureaucracy is still quite daunting. The numbers of women having extremely late abortions is very small. We simply don't need time limits. We need lots of other things, but not time limits. The other thing, is, OK, I might have been underestimating UK women (never wise, I've oft discovered :-( ) - but it won't be the same everywhere, will it? |
|
08 May 13 - 11:01 AM (#3513027) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Richard Bridge: "How anyone can assert that a 33% reduction in abortion availability is anything other than an attack on women baffles me." I'm sure it would baffle you....being as the women are not the ones being attacked....try thinking of an innocent, defenseless child, or fetus. Don't you think some THOUGHTFULNESS BEFORE one gets careless would be an attack on no one????...... .......or do we always have to compensate for the reckless....enabling them to continue to be reckless?..... .....and BTW, abortion on demand, may SEEM like a quick fix solution, but then have you ever talked in depth, to a woman who has had one, and then reflects back about what she thinks about...for years later??? GfS |
|
08 May 13 - 12:52 PM (#3513056) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Angela Galbraith Steve, I must commend you for correcting yourself with dignity about the intelligence of UK women. I would suggest to you that all women no matter where they are in the world are equally intelligent when it comes to knowing their own bodies and are more than capable of making self informed choices in that regard. We know things that no man could ever know or book could ever teach about what we feel when it comes to our own bodies, no matter how gallantly the man may fight, or educator may seek to inform others for our cause of choice. Just as there are many women who have never felt that overwhelming feeling of joy and wonder that comes with becoming a mother, but the choice of when or even when not should never be anyone's but their own, and none should ever be subjected to the despotic likes of a Kermit Gosnell and the many others like him who deceitfully claim to champion for our cause. They should be exposed and held in the highest of disdain, not hidden away for our own self-serving reasons. I can only hope that we as women never become so detached by the cause that we forget that the choice we make must be for two, and ours alone. Only then can we deem to ourselves that our choice be true and just, no matter what that choice may be, no further proof is needed. There is a wonderful book I read while at University and contains one of my favorite quotes that I think you would find profoundly intriguing, I know that I did. Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood by Kristin Luker "Pro-choice and pro-life activists live in different worlds, and the scope of their lives, as both adults and children, fortifies them in their belief that their own views on abortion are the more correct, the more moral, and more reasonable. When added to this is the fact that should 'the other side' win, one group of women will see the very real devaluation of their lives and life resources, it is not surprising that the abortion debate has generated so much heat and so little light." Of course we shall always be grateful to all gallant men who stand for the causes of our convictions, be they whatever they may be. |
|
08 May 13 - 09:06 PM (#3513217) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Yes, Angela, but here I go, stepping into territory into which blokes really ought to fear to tread... Knowing your body is not the same as knowing how to not get pregnant. I was involved, for my sins, in "sex education" in secondary schools for 25 years. Believe me, no matter how important it is to respect the fact that girls/women know their own bodies, I found it to be just as urgently important to ensure that both girls and boys knew that you could get pregnant first time, that you couldn't avoid pregnancy by jumping on and off your bed afterwards, that washing your vagina out with vinegar wouldn't stop you getting pregnant, that the rhythm method would almost certainly "get you into trouble", that the lad pulling out his willy at the last minute wasn't the ideal way to avoid pregnancy (and so on, ad nauseam). And I don't agree with your pro-life/pro-choice quote. My standpoint is predicated on practicality, not morality. I'll leave the latter to the religious among us, thanks. Moralising has got us where we are, with horribly-high abortion figures. Moralisers are abortion's greatest champions. I hardly ever hear moralisers (pro-lifers if you like) promoting education for sexual knowledge and self-respect and promoting social equality (they're always far too right-wing for that). Abortion's greatest enemies are those who seek genuine solutions, not just more of the same. Education and open-mindedness trump silly laws and time limits any day. As for your gallant men thing, well we blokes who can think genuine thoughts about this stuff hardly need your matronising, thank you. |
|
08 May 13 - 10:47 PM (#3513227) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Richard Bridge FFS - I have indeed had those conversations. I have had them with good friends who were never sexual partners of mine but who were let down by selfish lovers, with partners from time to time of mine who had been let down by previous lovers at previous times, and with one then current partner who had been unable until very much the last minute to get the arrogant medical profession to believe her that there was something badly wrong. And I would comment that the belief that should a "pro-choice" view prevail, no woman will ever be forced by the existence of choice to have an abortion so it is a senseless attempt to create a verbal equivalence to assert that antiabortionists would see a devaluation of THEIR lives and resources. They would merely have been prevented from forcing their views on others. Women should have abortions if they want them. And, of course, they should be free not to have them if they don't want to. Anyone believing that the need for abortions can be removed is living in la-la land, and the irony (maybe I should say the vileness) of it is that most of those who seek to reduce the availability of abortion or to terrorise women out of having abortions, or to terrorise the providers of abortions are men - so will never truly know what suffering an unwanted pregnancy can create - and ALSO seek to reduce the availability of contraception, to reduce support for a mother of an unwanted child, and to reduce support for the unwanted child. |
|
08 May 13 - 11:52 PM (#3513240) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Richard Bridge: "Anyone believing that the need for abortions can be removed is living in la-la land, and the irony (maybe I should say the vileness) of it is that most of those who seek to reduce the availability of abortion or to terrorise women out of having abortions, or to terrorise the providers of abortions are men -..." Good luck...read it carefully! GfS |
|
09 May 13 - 12:51 AM (#3513252) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Angela Galbraith Steve, perhaps I should have gone back and read some of your previous post before I offered you any kind of commendation for your earlier remark. You are clearly not only a self aggrandizing know-it all sexist bigot, but a poser and a fraud as well. It's one thing to imply that women are somehow, even when educated; lacking in intelligence, but to have made some of the most callus and insensitive remarks as you have about women like myself that have in our life been faced with such a decision to terminate a pregnancy, but also carry two to full term I find not only offensive but even more despicable than any I've heard from Pro-Life extremist. More despicable because you have the unmitigated gall to assume a position of choice. "The world we live in consists of people who (once you've discounted lunatics and idiots) are 100% against abortion." Many women who choose to terminate a pregnancy must struggle hard to come to terms with that being the best solution, and then spend the rest of our lives dealing with the self doubt by reassuring ourselves that we would if confronted with that same set of circumstances make that same choice. We do not believe that decision is 100% wrong. To imply that millions of women who believe that are somehow "lunatics and idiots" is utterly despicable. The statement you were remarking on describes the very struggle that I personally dealt with, "Abortion is one of the rare issues in a civilized society that(finds Civil Rights and Human Rights justifiably and sincerely at odds with one another)." "You will not meet a single sane person on earth who thinks abortion is a good thing." To again imply that millions of us who believe that the right and decision to make that choice is a good thing, some how renders us less sane than all on earth who believe to the contrary is beyond outrageous. "We all hate abortion. No-one loves abortion. Abortion is a failure every time." You clearly harbor absolutely no empathy for just how much of a challenge we faced in coming to terms with such a decision, yet you would deem us all a failure for believing our choice was just and true...how pathetic...talk about moralizing." "I think the boundaries are so blurred as to make the distinction almost useless...I also think that the debate about "when life actually begins" is futile and depressing." Well of course you would your a bloody bloke, you haven't got the slightest clue as to what goes on in a woman's body during pregnancy, although you spout your mouth off about it like you do. Having terminated my first pregnancy early and carried two to full term I can tell you Stevie there is no blurring of the boundaries nor is when life begins some kind of futile quest; less it be to describe the experience to a man or even a women who has never experienced it. That moment when for the first time you feel what before were nothing more than a flood of cascading emotional swings and nausea actually come to life inside you. To describe the wash of joy and wonder that floods your ever sense when what before you had considered a discomforting condition first comes to life inside you, and you know that what before was a thing is in fact a living being is indescribable and without question undeniable to the woman who experiences it, especially for the first time. If anyone is qualified to make a distinction of when life begins, it would be the women who have been there and felt its emergence. And I among many others concur that it serves to be the one most profound reasons as to why we and so few other women seek (sought)legal late term abortions in comparison to early terminations of pregnancy. If the likes of someone who could make such ludicrous and insensitive remarks without considering what they say about the women who have faced these struggles, is to be a self declared know-it all championing our cause, we would be better off with those who declare themselves our enemies. You Stevie boy are no more a champion for the cause of choice, than the likes of a David Duke is a champion for the cause of Civil Rights. You both are equally pathetic, self-aggrandizing, arrogant bigots. Now you and your mates can banter about your adolescent chauvinistic babble about your uninformed and ignorant opinions on abortion and choice from now to dooms day, and it will never make the truth about you any less true. |
|
09 May 13 - 01:43 AM (#3513257) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST Sanity, your wasting your breath on these blokes. The fact that they are clueless to who the quote and author they are bashing is, exposes their ignorance on this issue. The fact that SHE is one of the most highly revered academics' by the Pro-Choice movement, both in the States and here, as well as one highly respected on the Pro-Life side of this issue; reveals all one need know about the true source of their juvenile opinions. |
|
09 May 13 - 06:07 AM (#3513301) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Richard Bridge FFS - learn to read. MOST (I did not say all, I know there are madwomen who seek to oppress their own sex) of the oppressors, in this context, of women are men. They MOSTLY are legislators in various small-town jurisdictions who want to restrict abortion, restrict contraception, restrict maternity benefits, restrict welfare and programs to empower single parents and the children of single parents - who even try to restrict sexual activity (except when they are doing it to someone they sought to disempower, and usually lying about it and sometimes illegally claiming expenses for doing it). Therblig - you need to learn to read as well. Steve said none of the things of which you accuse him. You speak of the (alleged) knowledge of women - yet deny women their own choices. |
|
09 May 13 - 06:10 AM (#3513304) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Well, Angela Galbraith, that rant is little more than a series of gross misrepresentations of both the content and (more crucially) the spirit of what I've said on this topic, and you spice it with a dose of rudeness that I certainly haven't accorded you. Until you cool down a bit instead of using the thread to get your own personal issues off your chest and shoot down people who genuinely try to think about these things, there really isn't much point trying to engage with you. |
|
09 May 13 - 10:15 AM (#3513379) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: John P Angela, your position seems to be that no man should have anything to say on the subject of abortion. Here's what you seem to be missing: most of us aren't talking about abortion. We're talking about whether or not it is appropriate to force women to have babies. And another thing you may have missed: we all get to talk about any damn thing we please. I have to say that, even after I take out all the uncalled-for insults in your post, I still don't know if you are pro-choice, anti-abortion, or just generally angry. I do gather that you are pissed off at Steve because he thinks that abortions are bad things. I'd love to hear your rationale for any other position, if you can deliver it without insulting other people for things they didn't say or that you just misunderstood. |
|
09 May 13 - 04:05 PM (#3513513) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw I think abortions are bad things but I think there should be no restrictions on women whatsoever. I honestly think that there can be no other starting point when addressing this issue. |
|
09 May 13 - 07:25 PM (#3513579) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: John P Well, yes Steve, obviously. It's really too bad that so much of the rest of the world seems to believe that turning women into sexual slaves is OK. How do they live with themselves? |
|
09 May 13 - 07:35 PM (#3513582) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Ebbie In my opinion, Angela G scanned Steve Shaw's previous post(s) and decided that she knew what he was saying. She was wrong. |
|
09 May 13 - 07:55 PM (#3513587) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Yeah, but this area is a bit of a minefield for us chaps, Ebbie. Our spirit and intentions can be good but you can make one little slip of language and the Angelas and the Shaniquas of this world are on you like a ton of bricks. That's fine, and, as a bloke, I'm acutely aware of the need to listen to the people on the sharp end - women - and constantly adjust my mindset according to what women say. But I can only respond to reason (and I would never claim that the ability to reason is more developed in us chaps, far from it). To put it rather crudely (I'm a northerner, you know), Shaniqua and Angela shit in their own beds when they let fly as they have done. I'm not allowed to say that, by their rants, they do the cause of women's progression in the world very little good, but I can still think it. It's too bloody scary and unfocussed to do any good, and, if you can't consider outcomes, well you might as well keep your mouth shut, I reckon. I've rather clumsily stood up for women's rights and equality all my adult life, and I don't want to hear rants when I put forth my opinion that accuse me of being a bigot or a Nazi. Blokes need women, for sure, but human beings all need each other, ears akimbo. |
|
09 May 13 - 08:09 PM (#3513592) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: frogprince We have a local "pregnancy center", really a right-to-life organization, which publicises their promise to help women find forgiveness if they have sinned by having an abortion. With material like that around, it could be easy read the statement "abortion is bad" as "having an abortion is an evil thing to do". One thought regarding Steve's stance, and that would be in regard to pregnancy from rape. As Steve noted some time back, the morning-after pill should be made available immediately; but there will be instances, if only when a traumitised woman does not bring herself to report a rape promptly, when that doesn't work out. I'm just thinking that, in that or other possible extenuating circumstances, it may not even be appropriate to say that the abortion itself is "bad" This may be considered to be "straining at a gnat"; Steve's position is well stated and I respect it. |
|
09 May 13 - 09:02 PM (#3513604) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw That is certainly food for thought. Still, I suppose that, for the girl undergoing the abortion, it still wouldn't exactly feel good. Here's me, in a nutshell. Talking about when life truly starts is futile. We've been rattling on about this for decades and there is simply no prospect for agreement. It inflames people on both sides and is all heat and no light. We have to move on from that - and, pro-lifers, it means a moral compromise on your part. Tough, but the argument is pointless and you have to come to terms. If you need an abortion it almost certainly means you got pregnant when you didn't want to. The only way we will ever get abortion numbers down is by helping people to not get pregnant until they are ready. This is such a numskull, bleedin' obvious notion, yet it causes so much difficulty. Mainly from religion. People are going to have sex, not abstain. People who have sex can't rely on rhythm methods or withdrawal. Everyone likely to have sex (which is nearly everybody) needs to know about, and have free access to, contraception. Duh. They need to know about the mechanics of sex and pregnancy. The real stuff, not the behind-the-bikeshed stuff. Sex is such a crucial part of human life that everyone involved in raising children needs to be involved in education about relationships. We need good parenting classes. We need every teacher in every school to be involved in showing children how to build respect for themselves and for others. Teachers are supposed to be paragons of virtue. Well let's see a bit of it. Your subject area is nowhere near as important as showing the kids in front of you that you respect them, they respect you, they respect each other, and why. Religion has played a terrible part in maintaining women as inferior beings. It can make no contribution to this debate. The religion I know best preaches abstinence, sin, ignorance, and no contraception. Religion is part of the problem (or almost the whole of the problem), and cannot be involved in any solution. Religion champions abortion. Unfettered access to abortion, regardless of income and with no time limits, is crucial. Deny abortion to women and you will get illegal abortion with all the misery that comes with it. At the same time, get teachers and parents in on the act and show young people how to control whether they get pregnant or not (that's the urgent bit) and a lot more than just that. The horrid abortion rate is everyone's issue. |
|
09 May 13 - 11:55 PM (#3513627) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Richard Bridge: "They MOSTLY are legislators in various small-town jurisdictions who want to restrict abortion, restrict contraception, restrict maternity benefits, restrict welfare and programs to empower single parents and the children of single parents - ..." How come most all the emphasis is on '....programs to empower single parents and the children of single parents..." Seems to me, (and others), that many of these programs empower people to BE single parents, and to have abortions. How come the same people who are SO CONCERNED about "....programs to empower single parents and the children of single parents...." seem not to give a shit about whole nuclear families??....even view them with contempt...what's with that?? As it is, nobody is FORCING women to have babies, as much as they push women to get abortions....what's with that?? Having babies is a normal function in life....having abortions really isn't, when you come to think of it. GfS |
|
10 May 13 - 12:04 AM (#3513628) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Ebbie I would agree with all that, Steve Shaw, except for one thing: I do think there need to be time limits. If a pregnancy has proceeded for six months, say, and the fetus is viable I think an abortion, a pre-emptive extraction, should be permitted ONLY in cases of imminent danger to the mother. Even then I think it should be taken by cesarean. If the host, the mother, is in such bad shape that a pregnancy cannot be continued, surely the simple cesarean would be less traumatic to her system. Complicating timelines is the fact that science is saving ever-younger babies. A generation ago, a two-pound fetus was simply not going to survive. That is no longer true. |
|
10 May 13 - 02:09 AM (#3513642) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Ebbie: "If the host, the mother, is ....." Interesting choice of words. GfS |
|
10 May 13 - 04:58 AM (#3513676) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link i was watching a TED vid yesterday of the conception to birth journey and IMO it is quite clear that we are talking about human beings at an early stage being formed,even if the religious view of this being from conception is rejected. IMO the "back street abortion" argument is a poor one.at the other end of life ,we might as well say take your dementia mum to the medics to be put down to avoid back street euthanasias. of course we dont have them - yet! |
|
10 May 13 - 06:57 AM (#3513703) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Congratulations, pete, on producing the most inane of all your many inane posts. That is indeed a difficult area, Ebbie. The thing is, though, that late abortions already represent a tiny minority of all abortions. I contend that good education along the lines I've suggested would reduce them to vanishingly-small numbers. The trouble with having time limits is that they give the anti-abortion lobby a handle. Their efforts and energy are overwhelmingly focussed on getting that limit down, and so the ugly fight continues. Well I think education is a far better way of avoiding late abortions. And let's not forget that illegal late abortions are the most traumatic, messy and dangerous of the lot. I admit that this particular area gives me a bit of a wobble, but I'm sticking to me guns, on reflection. |
|
10 May 13 - 09:09 PM (#3513752) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: dick greenhaus To start with, why not drop the loaded "pro-life" label and call it what it is: "anti-choice" |
|
10 May 13 - 09:31 PM (#3513753) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Ebbie I thought about 'hostESS', GfS, but it seemed a bit twee. As for the label "pro-life" I agree that they have co-opted a designation they have not earned in any sense. As typified by the almost unanimous pro-capital punishment stance they take, they are not pro-life at all but anti-choice, as noted above by both Steve Shaw and Dick Greenhaus. I would respect them more if they were more forthright about it. It seems strange to me that just about every plank of the anti-choice platform is antithetical to everything I hold dear. One would think there would be at least a few overlapping beliefs. |
|
10 May 13 - 10:42 PM (#3513767) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity No, I was just referring to the word 'host'. I meant nothing about the 'ess'. Interesting choice, that's all. GfS |
|
11 May 13 - 10:30 AM (#3513861) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw "Pro-life" is a disgraceful term. If I have to use it, I try to remember to say "so-called" in front of it. Getting abortion numbers down (what you'd think would be a universal desire, until you see how some religions teach the very things that can only work to keep the numbers up) is a practical matter. Individual abortions may be full of angst and mixed emotions, but we can't discuss getting the numbers down unless we take a step back and remove the emotion (and the moralising) from the conversation. Inserting emotion into the very name of "your side" is a very bad start. "Pro-choice" is accurate and unemotional. "Anti-choice", unfortunately, has the smell of intolerance about it. "Anti-abortion" doesn't work for me because its opposite is pro-abortion, which is ludicrous. It's a sad thing, but the names we give to our respective factions are all too readily used as weapons against the other side. They get in the way of rational discussion. If we are sensible and wish to avoid polarisation, we simply have to start from the standpoint that we are all anti-abortion. That does not mean we all oppose abortion, or even wish to put any obstacles in the way of women. Then we have to see the issue as a practical one. We want to get those numbers down. We must talk about that without demeaning women, without moralising and without the "killing babies" style of emotional handbagging. Find common ground. There is some. |
|
11 May 13 - 11:16 AM (#3513867) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Steve Shaw: "Pro-life" is a disgraceful term." ..as is, 'pro-choice'. Once fertilization begins, there is no 'choice' that that process begins OTHER THAN, being responsible, when there was a CHOICE, to act responsibly towards what it is that people have pushed out of balance. In other words, a 'moment of pleasure', while disregarding possible consequences...and as long as people are irresponsible regarding their actions, the question will go on, as long as people have a 'free' ride, to NOT take into account, that sometimes those 'moments of pleasure', are NOT at the top of the 'food chain' in prioritizing their lives. The 'choice' begins with the moment one DECIDES(choice), to disregard the FACT, that their 'toys', are actually the reproductive system, hard wired, to continue the species. The 'allure' is nothing more than the 'mating dance' exploited, for lesser reasons. ..and that, my dear 'out of control' Mudcat horn-dogs, is the way it is. I didn't write the rules...but I'm just reminding you that they exist, and are often overlooked, for selfish reasons. Choice???....but more often than not, ignored!.... So, the term 'pro-choice' is quite a misnomer in itself!! GfS |
|
11 May 13 - 11:17 AM (#3513868) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: dick greenhaus Labels matter (check out Orwell in the appendix to 1984). The GOP has been very good at this kind of manipulative labeling: ie "death tax" instead of "estate tax", "Pro-life" instead of "Anti-choice", "Entitlements" instead of "Social Safety Net" |
|
11 May 13 - 03:42 PM (#3513936) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Pro-choice refers to the womans's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. That is what everyone who uses the term means by it. It is, in that sense, perfectly accurate. Opportunistic moralising about other areas of choice whenever the word crops up, Guffers, is disingenuous and misleading. And thoroughly dishonest. I suppose that the people who oppose the woman's right to abortion are anti-choice. That's accurate too, but again it carries that polarising factor with it. It reeks of intolerance and lack of understanding. I happen to think that people who oppose a woman's right to have an abortion are those things, but the name doesn't exactly help. |
|
11 May 13 - 04:11 PM (#3513954) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: frogprince Yuh: Gfs: Do you believe that all married couples should produce as many children as possible? It's not an absurd question; there are people, united as the "full quiver" movement, who advocate that. Do you believe that no one should ever have sex unless they are deliberately intending to conceive a child? Again, that is not a new idea. Do you believe that any abortion, under any circumstances whatever, should be illegal and that every effort should be made to prevent it? That isn't even close to an absurd question; we have a remarkable number of politicians saying that, and a remarkable number of people voting for them. |
|
11 May 13 - 04:48 PM (#3513969) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Well, I don't think setting a quota would be good one way or another. ..and getting an abortion, for a woman is NOT altogether the healthiest thing for their emotional side, either. I posted a link to a woman who was 'Roe' of 'Roe vs Wade'...I thought it was more than 'telling' in several areas...her feelings, the political pressure, the legal fraud, and her regrets. You don't have to pin any labels on all those who happen to see her point, and agree with her....after all, it is 'Roe' of 'Roe vs Wade' fame. It would serve you well to check it out...if you haven't....and I don't think that she could be name called, as just an 'antiabortionist-anti-choice' bigot....do you? Here is is again, in case you might be curious Read it carefully...at least to get HER thoughts on it. GfS |
|
11 May 13 - 07:20 PM (#3514011) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw ..and getting an abortion, for a woman is NOT altogether the healthiest thing for their emotional side, either. What a bunch of ignorant, ill-informed, patronising, chauvinistic shite. Shame on you. I thought you were supposed to be some kind of counsellor. |
|
12 May 13 - 01:09 AM (#3514093) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Steve 'Feet in the Mouth Shaw: "What a bunch of ignorant, ill-informed, patronising, chauvinistic shite. Shame on you. I thought you were supposed to be some kind of counsellor." That's right....and that's how I know it, unlike your political talking points nonsense, mixed with the wishful thinking that if you ignore it, (their emotional needs and hurts), it won't bother you at all! GfS |
|
12 May 13 - 01:56 AM (#3514100) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Don Firth Forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want isn't exactly the healthiest thing for a woman's emotional side either. Nor, for that matter, is being unwanted real healthy for the emotions of the child. Don Firth |
|
12 May 13 - 02:36 AM (#3514105) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Now how do we jump from curbing the amount of abortions, to 'forcing women to have babies'? Sounds like a bunch of political over re-action and getting a little heavy on the dramatic. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything...except to support political policies, even if their 'religious' beliefs, tell them something else.....Oh, and the taxpayers, who, once again, have to fork out money to remedy the irresponsible actions of lamebrains. GfS |
|
12 May 13 - 06:19 AM (#3514143) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Now how do we jump from curbing the amount of abortions, to 'forcing women to have babies'? Under your regime of ignorance, intolerance and chauvinism there's no jump to be made. They are the same thing. |
|
12 May 13 - 07:54 AM (#3514164) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link interesting link gfs.highlghts the issues the pro [unwilling mothers] choice side wish to dismiss and minimize. don firth- and what do we do with the 2 yr old who becomes unwanted? |
|
12 May 13 - 09:13 AM (#3514177) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw the pro [unwilling mothers] choice side For your information, pro-choice refers to the belief that you should have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. If you so choose, you are not a mother, therefore you cannot be an "unwilling mother". If you choose to have your baby, you are a willing mother. Your vicious intolerance is showing through, I'm afraid. |
|
12 May 13 - 09:14 AM (#3514179) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw If you so choose to have an abortion, that is. I'm having a bad grammar day. |
|
12 May 13 - 10:01 AM (#3514196) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Greg F. don firth- and what do we do with the 2 yr old who becomes unwanted? Jaysus, Pete, get a clue (or a life) will ya? |
|
15 May 13 - 03:37 PM (#3515445) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link more to the point if you choose to have an abortion,you are no longer a mother - to that child. |
|
15 May 13 - 07:15 PM (#3515525) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw You see, pete, that's where you and your benighted ilk have got it so wrong. If in doubt, appeal to emotion. Carry on. Do the mummy and baby stuff, and get no answers. The sooner you and your fellow-travellers see that abortion is a practical matter, not a moral or emotional one*, the sooner we can get to work on getting those numbers down. But that isn't what you want, is it, pete. Oh no, that would not suit your moralising agenda at all. Get those numbers down and you'd have nothing to moralise about! *Which is in no way intended to demean individual women who have abortions. There's nothing in a man's compass that could begin to compare with the emotional wrangle of going through an abortion. But I'm talking about how we as society need to take a step or two back to see this issue in the round. And I always come back to the point that morals have no place in the discussion about getting abortion numbers down. Morality-preaching, in this issue above almost all others, serves to cloud the situation. And I have yet to see a religious standpoint on abortion that would do anything other thn maintain abortion numbers at a high level. |
|
15 May 13 - 07:54 PM (#3515543) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity pete from seven stars link: "more to the point if you choose to have an abortion,you are no longer a mother - to that child." Not only 'to that child', but legally also. In most cases, the natural parents have to sign an agreement, not to make contact with the child, and agree that the child's whereabouts will not be disclosed. ...and Pete, you also brought up a good point...AND it's even true! GfS P.S. The link I posted was 'Roe's of 'Roe vs Wade', stating her thoughts and feelings, and recalling the history of it. ...and then I get the backlash as if it was just my opinion, and how 'mean' I am.....when will some of you just grow the fuck up??? |
|
15 May 13 - 08:06 PM (#3515545) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw and then I get the backlash as if it was just my opinion, and how 'mean' I am.....when will some of you just grow the fuck up??? Said with a thoroughly endearing lack of irony... :-) |
|
15 May 13 - 10:11 PM (#3515580) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Ebbie "more to the point if you choose to have an abortion,you are no longer a mother - to that child." Not only 'to that child', but legally also. In most cases, the natural parents have to sign an agreement, not to make contact with the child, and agree that the child's whereabouts will not be disclosed." GfS "Not to make contact" with the aborted child? It boggles the mind... |
|
15 May 13 - 10:20 PM (#3515581) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Don Firth I don't think that Goofy knows the difference between "aborted" and "adopted." Don Firth |
|
15 May 13 - 11:24 PM (#3515602) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Ebbie Ah. That explains so much. |
|
16 May 13 - 01:13 AM (#3515614) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity I misread, and thought it meant 'adopted'. Don Firth: "I don't think that Goofy knows the difference between "aborted" and "adopted." Well Don, being as you favor abortions..... David is still here.....does it matter?.....or is that just for everybody else?..and to bolster your 'so-called' liberalism???....Do you have regrets??....Now that you got to meet him! GfS |
|
16 May 13 - 02:18 AM (#3515626) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Richard Bridge Steve, I'd just like to say how I admire your patience with the coercive idiots posting here. You are batting about 100% right. FFS - you are a disgrace to your alleged profession. As an (alleged) counsellor I would think you to be a great contributor to suicides. PFSS - if I couldn't read your shit here I wouldn't believe that such inanity was possible. |
|
16 May 13 - 09:26 PM (#3515990) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Don Firth GfS, if you're referring to what I think you're referring to, there never was any question of abortion. And you got his name wrong. Like everything else. Idiot!! Don Firth |
|
16 May 13 - 10:01 PM (#3516005) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Don Firth: "GfS, if you're referring to what I think you're referring to, there never was any question of abortion. And you got his name wrong. Like everything else." Well if I got it wrong, how do you know what I was referring to? But now that you brought it up, how come: "...there never was any question of abortion."? I thought you were pro-abortion.... GfS |
|
17 May 13 - 12:05 AM (#3516034) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Don Firth In your case, yes. But it's a little late now. Don Firth |
|
17 May 13 - 02:34 AM (#3516055) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Don Firth And you know, Goofy, if you hadn't got yourself expelled from nursery school, you might have eventually learned how to read. I never, at any point in this discussion, did I say that I'm "for abortion." I believe that the option of abortion should be available to a woman in certain circumstances, which I specifically stated above. Once, yet AGAIN, you are lying you stupid head off!! Don Firth |
|
17 May 13 - 01:16 PM (#3516229) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw "I thought you were pro-abortion...." There is not a single sane person on this planet who is pro-abortion. Attend to your terminology. |
|
17 May 13 - 01:59 PM (#3516252) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Don Firth Once again, cut from up-thread a way and pasted again here, is my stance on abortion. Does this sound, as Goofy claims, that I'm "pro-abortion?" Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass EffortI think that was clear enough for most relatively intelligent people. Don Firth |
|
17 May 13 - 07:00 PM (#3516319) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw Good sex education and available birth control should prevent the problem of unwanted pregnancies in the first place, but if all else fails, abortion should be available to any woman who wants one. That's it in a nutshell, Don. What the planet needs is a panel of wise people (vicars, bishops, right-wingers, etc., would be rigorously excluded) to define good sex education. The plumbing department is about ten percent of good sex education. Advice on family planning and contraception (useless unless contraception is freely available) is another ten percent. The rest is all about teaching respect for self and for others, for ridding ourselves of sexism and chauvinism and for showing children that the best world is one based on consideration for others and fair play. That's a process that you don't delegate to the biology teacher. It involves everybody who ever comes into contact with young people (in other words, everybody except the Pope, even physics specialists). |
|
18 May 13 - 06:10 AM (#3516408) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link seems to me that it all depends on the humanity of the unborn if we approach the problem ethically,but on the woman [and those pressurizing her]if looked at without that constraint. |
|
18 May 13 - 08:40 AM (#3516434) Subject: RE: BS: Roe vs Wade ByPass Effort From: Steve Shaw OK, add misogyny to your sins. Fine by me. Incidentally, looking at this "ethically" has got us where we are. Up shit creek without a paddle, in other words. Let's try treating it as a practical matter that can be resolved without preaching at people. In the meantime, why not try applying your "ethics" to honest science? |