mudcat.org: BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3]


BS: Roe v. Wade: Last Anniversary?

Bobert 22 Jan 03 - 12:24 PM
katlaughing 22 Jan 03 - 01:44 PM
katlaughing 22 Jan 03 - 03:07 PM
TIA 22 Jan 03 - 03:37 PM
Bobert 22 Jan 03 - 04:02 PM
John Hardly 22 Jan 03 - 04:07 PM
NicoleC 22 Jan 03 - 04:31 PM
TIA 22 Jan 03 - 04:46 PM
TIA 22 Jan 03 - 05:50 PM
GUEST,guest mike 22 Jan 03 - 06:00 PM
McGrath of Harlow 22 Jan 03 - 06:04 PM
mg 22 Jan 03 - 06:13 PM
Uncle Jaque 22 Jan 03 - 06:22 PM
Hippie Chick 22 Jan 03 - 06:23 PM
TIA 22 Jan 03 - 06:50 PM
NicoleC 22 Jan 03 - 06:58 PM
NicoleC 22 Jan 03 - 07:09 PM
McGrath of Harlow 22 Jan 03 - 07:26 PM
Bobert 22 Jan 03 - 07:29 PM
michaelr 22 Jan 03 - 08:34 PM
McGrath of Harlow 22 Jan 03 - 08:55 PM
Bill D 22 Jan 03 - 09:04 PM
Bobert 22 Jan 03 - 09:36 PM
John Hardly 22 Jan 03 - 09:49 PM
Bobert 22 Jan 03 - 09:58 PM
Barry Finn 22 Jan 03 - 10:29 PM
NicoleC 22 Jan 03 - 10:42 PM
Bobert 22 Jan 03 - 10:45 PM
michaelr 22 Jan 03 - 11:09 PM
Deda 23 Jan 03 - 01:18 AM
Kaleea 23 Jan 03 - 02:04 AM
kendall 23 Jan 03 - 09:41 AM
katlaughing 23 Jan 03 - 10:40 AM
Bobert 23 Jan 03 - 10:45 AM
McGrath of Harlow 23 Jan 03 - 10:58 AM
Beccy 23 Jan 03 - 11:13 AM
Bobert 23 Jan 03 - 11:21 AM
Beccy 23 Jan 03 - 11:26 AM
Bobert 23 Jan 03 - 11:35 AM
Bagpuss 23 Jan 03 - 11:53 AM
Beccy 23 Jan 03 - 12:47 PM
katlaughing 23 Jan 03 - 01:05 PM
Peg 23 Jan 03 - 01:10 PM
NicoleC 23 Jan 03 - 01:12 PM
NicoleC 23 Jan 03 - 01:13 PM
NicoleC 23 Jan 03 - 01:25 PM
kendall 23 Jan 03 - 01:27 PM
Bobert 23 Jan 03 - 01:45 PM
Stilly River Sage 23 Jan 03 - 01:48 PM
JenEllen 23 Jan 03 - 02:20 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






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

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

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

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

5-4! Get used to hearing it!

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

I must agree but disagree John Hardly -

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

Give me a bloody break, eh?

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

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

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

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

Get used to it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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

If "yes", proceed to question 2.

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

If "no", you are pro-choice.

If "yes", proceed to question 3.

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

    1. The upcoming attack on Iraq by the US.

    2. Capital punishment.

Just curious...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

Cheers,
Michael


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

Jus' funnin, my friend.

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

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

TIA,

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

What ever got into me?

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

Go figure?....

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Ah -- thanks, Nicole.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Absolutely, Kendall, well said!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Kaleea:

What a thoughtful post and I thank your for it.

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

Pro-lifers who have posted to this thread:

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

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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

Stay warm...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Yo Arfus:

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

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

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

Good doggie...

Wuff.

Uncle Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

KT


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

kat


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Beccy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My ethics lead me to that choice.

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

P.S. Love and good wishes to Arfus.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

Okay, I'm done for now!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

Visit here or here for more on the topic.

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

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

SRS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 19 October 9:08 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.