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?

Sam L 04 Feb 03 - 09:56 AM
Bobert 03 Feb 03 - 07:54 PM
Sam L 03 Feb 03 - 01:30 PM
Bobert 02 Feb 03 - 07:00 PM
GUEST,colwyn dane 02 Feb 03 - 02:02 PM
Beccy 31 Jan 03 - 01:32 PM
Deda 31 Jan 03 - 12:20 PM
Sam L 31 Jan 03 - 11:14 AM
Stilly River Sage 31 Jan 03 - 01:43 AM
katlaughing 31 Jan 03 - 12:54 AM
Bobert 30 Jan 03 - 09:07 PM
GUEST,colwyn dane 30 Jan 03 - 08:35 PM
Stilly River Sage 29 Jan 03 - 11:38 PM
Bobert 29 Jan 03 - 10:34 PM
GUEST 29 Jan 03 - 09:42 PM
Bobert 28 Jan 03 - 08:47 PM
GUEST,colwyn dane 28 Jan 03 - 08:34 PM
Bobert 28 Jan 03 - 02:33 PM
TIA 28 Jan 03 - 01:19 PM
Sam L 28 Jan 03 - 11:06 AM
Amos 28 Jan 03 - 10:06 AM
Deda 27 Jan 03 - 09:37 PM
TIA 27 Jan 03 - 05:36 PM
Bobert 27 Jan 03 - 05:25 PM
NicoleC 27 Jan 03 - 04:26 PM
Amos 27 Jan 03 - 03:23 PM
Bobert 27 Jan 03 - 01:32 PM
beadie 27 Jan 03 - 12:26 PM
NicoleC 27 Jan 03 - 12:15 PM
TIA 27 Jan 03 - 11:52 AM
Beccy 27 Jan 03 - 10:59 AM
Beccy 27 Jan 03 - 10:50 AM
Bobert 27 Jan 03 - 08:31 AM
kendall 26 Jan 03 - 10:25 PM
NicoleC 26 Jan 03 - 07:34 PM
NicoleC 26 Jan 03 - 07:33 PM
Amos 26 Jan 03 - 07:12 PM
Deda 26 Jan 03 - 06:31 PM
Beccy 26 Jan 03 - 08:50 AM
GUEST 26 Jan 03 - 08:34 AM
katlaughing 26 Jan 03 - 06:44 AM
Rustic Rebel 26 Jan 03 - 02:46 AM
Stilly River Sage 26 Jan 03 - 12:48 AM
Deda 25 Jan 03 - 11:59 PM
NicoleC 24 Jan 03 - 09:05 PM
Amos 24 Jan 03 - 08:59 PM
Deda 24 Jan 03 - 08:55 PM
kendall 24 Jan 03 - 08:16 PM
McGrath of Harlow 24 Jan 03 - 06:21 PM
NicoleC 24 Jan 03 - 06:18 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






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

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

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

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

I promised to shut up, but.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Fred:

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

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

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

CD:

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

Peace

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A long life to you.
CD.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

GUEST,colwyn dane

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

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

What a jerk.

Stilly River Sage


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

Keep your moral judgements and self-righteousness to yourself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a long life.
CD


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Bobert,

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

SRS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

Wanton killing is wrong full stop.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

A long life matey.
CD.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

A small matter of life and death.

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

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

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

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

Regards
CD


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

And you are welcome, TIA.

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

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

LOL!


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

Statistical info here:
State Abortion Statistics

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Bobert:

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

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Beccy;

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

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

I'm highly doubtful.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

Deda: Well spoken. Good on you!

Bobert

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Deda:

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

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

kat


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Deda,

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

SRS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

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

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

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

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


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

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 19 October 8:40 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.