But, in my opinion, given the kind of over the top rhetoric used by the antiabortionists, we will see dead women littering the street.
To me it is just the opposite. It has been my experience that a pro-abortion tactic is the dramatization of women littering the streets because they chose to get illegal abortions. Or like some horror movie, you see women screaming and bloody running to hospitals with coat hangers hanging out from between their legs.
Of course, the antiabortionists will not take responsibility for their part in this by inciting those amoung their numbers who are unstable.
There are extremists in every cause. Should every cause be abandoned then?
Sounds familiar? Soon these 'wonderful' and 'compassionate' people will also post the women's names and addresses along with their pictures and medical records. Gee, it must make them feel awfully good to spear these women in the side after they have basically crucified themselves due to the world these self righteous antiabortionists have constructed.
Pro life people are wonderful and compassionate from my experience.
Haven't you experienced some wonderful and compassionate pro life advocates???
I do not agree with the very minute few who use such nasty tactics to prove a point.
And their major problem? Well, it is all about the money, now isn't it? They do not want to have to support an unwed mother and her kids but then again they do not want to allow abortion either. I am sitting here making book on when the shooting will start.
As a matter of fact, it is not about the money, at least not from the pro life view. It is about the right to life plain and simple.
Did you ever read any books by Bernard Nathanson? You seem to be well versed, maybe you should read some of his material to see how the whole abortion thing became an issue in the begining. It was all about Public Relations and Money. They masterminded an infallable plan to put the church in the hot seat and used the emotionalism of "rights being taken away" to seal the deal. All for the almighty dollar.
Making a book? Bwaaaaaahahahaha. Lets put our nuts to good use and have them go on missions to hunt the Al Queda terrorist.
"Haven't you experienced some wonderful and compassionate pro life advocates??? "
My sister-in-law is a great person. Good Mom. Festoons the family SUV with bumper stickers. The latest is "Life is not a Choice," or something like that.
But if I ever had a mind to talk with her about the subject, I figure I'd get an earful.
I've said before, I think extremists have hijacked the issue of abortion. There's no Give and take on either side. Which means when something does "give" it's not gonna be pretty.
I've tried on this board to just get agreements on terms. Jethro, the king of pro-life here, refused to use the term "pro-choice. " Even when I offered to use the term pro-life even though the illogical implication is that people on the other side are anti-life.
"I do not agree with the very minute few who use such nasty tactics to prove a point. "
Why do you think their numbers are "very minute," and why don't you agree with them?
But if I ever had a mind to talk with her about the subject, I figure I'd get an earful.
You ought to give it a try.
I've tried on this board to just get agreements on terms. Jethro, the king of pro-life here, refused to use the term "pro-choice. " Even when I offered to use the term pro-life even though the illogical implication is that people on the other side are anti-life.
Isn't is because the baby does not have a choice?
Aren't those on the other side against the life of the child? I mean, they chose to support the mother over the issue, whereas; the pro-life support the rights of the baby to live.
Why do you think their numbers are "very minute," and why don't you agree with them?
I do not agree with harassment of doctors, nurses, etc. or their families because the ultimate goal is to 1)present another perspective so that they change their mind and realize for themselves how horrid abortion is and 2)help them have such a change of heart that they no longer participate in abortions. When you do something like that (harassment), you close a persons spirit and they cannot hear you anyway. It gives them more reason to fight for their cause.
Also, the doctors children have a right to live in peace, as do his family, relatives and other innocents.
It is a much better approach to have a dialogue going and befriend those with opposing ideas. Both peoples learn from the relationship.
I think their numbers are very minute based on those I have come into contact with and their participation, and based on who the participants know and what they are doing in the pro-life movement.
So Pro-choice is not an acceptable term for you, either?
Pro choice is not a label or term I would personally identify with because my objective is to speak for the innocent who have no choice (yet) in the right to their life.
I'll let the other people in favor of legal abortion give you their take on the term "Pro-Life" and what it means to them.
I have neither the time nor the inclination.
But consider your inability to move half a centimeter on this issue and your either intentional or unintentional misinterpretation of the tem "pro-choice." It may only be a matter of time before you're snapping pictures and shouting at 16 year old girls on one of the worst days of their young life.
btw: I don't think the term "Pro Life" is accurate either. I prefer "Anti Abortion". Many people that are anti abortion are pro capital punishment, therefore they cannot be "Pro Life".
Interesting that you would draw a correlation to the animal rights movement. Because trashing laboratories and extreme tactics are almost always, tacitly or outrightly supported by mainstream (or as close to mainstream as they get) animal rights groups, like PETA. They may not do it themselves, but you'll hear hardly any, or no condemnation. And the efforts of the ALF are often praised. The leaders of PETA have expressed hope cattle plagues like BSE make it to the United States and wipe out the beef industry.
That's right I did draw a corolation between the two. of course PETA doesn't go out of there way to condem it. My point was simply that like the animal rights movement they have extremists who in many cases turn someone undecided or nuetral away from a cause. someone who is already a member of PETA will probably be quietly joyous of hearing of ALF's brand of terrorism. But to someone who might care about animal rights or even nuetral on the issue might very well be turned off by it. Same goes for the people taking pictures of women going in to have an abortion. I detest abortion as a sick and sad reflection on the value or non value of life. The difference is that even though I am opposed to abortion I think it's wrong to do so where PETA etc say nothing or little. of ALF's tactics.
So you're saying the posting the pictures on the Internet are "at the very least distasetful" or "distasteful" (one of the two). More or less distasteful to you than an abortion?
Of course it's more distasteful, gee let me think about it Rick, ending a human life or taking a picture of a woman having an abortion, which is worse hmmmm ? Obviously you knew the answer so why you asked it is interesting. You seem to have a problem with the terminology I used, why? I don't know but I think your possibly splitting hairs on the issue I think what the picture takers are doing is wrong. Period, end of sentence.
If the answser is "less" which I suspect , can you reach a point where, barring legal progress or change on the issue of abortion, that photographing young women walking into abortion clinics is an acceptable tactic, despite it's distastefulness?
As long as abortion is legal I would defend that persons right to do so in a non threatning enviroment. I don't think at any time it would be a good tactic frankly. Obviously I'd like to see abortion be banned again except in certain cases. But until that day I will use legal and ethical means in which to bring about change in the system. There are ways of doing so and unfortunatley for an unborn child, the extreme elements of the pro-life movement sometimes do more harm than good in bringing about that change. Blowing up clinics, harrassing women getting abortions, killing doctors, nurses etc Are wrong and also the incorrect way to bring change about.
I'll let the other people in favor of legal abortion give you their take on the term "Pro-Life" and what it means to them.
So nice of you to allow them the freedom of speech. Too bad you cannot offer those same freedoms (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... and all that comes with it) to the innocent life who's destiny is to be born.
I have neither the time nor the inclination.
Don't start something you can't finish!
But consider your inability to move half a centimeter on this issue and your either intentional or unintentional misinterpretation of the tem "pro-choice." It may only be a matter of time before you're snapping pictures and shouting at 16 year old girls on one of the worst days of their young life.
PULEEEEEZZZE get over your self.
......And it may only be a matter of time when you are voyeristically snapping pictures of sixteen old girls for your own pleasure.
And that would be unfortunate.
Ditto!
All you have to do is go back and read all of my threads to get a feel of where I stand on the abortion issue.
Are you here to discuss the issue or are you here for an argument?
Life Dynamics said one of its activists has called more than 800 abortion clinics nationwide in recent months, pretending to be a 13-year-old girl impregnated by her 22-year-old boyfriend. What she learned is that more than 90 percent of the clinic employees handling the calls said they would conceal the information provided by the caller, according to Life Dynamics president Mark Crutcher.
Such an action would be a violation of the law in states that require the reporting of sexual abuse of a minor. A 22-year-old having sex with a 13-year-old is considered statutory rape in all 50 states.
Most of the clinics receiving the telephone calls are affiliated with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Crutcher, who has released tape recordings of the calls, said some clinic employees told the caller how to avoid detection and circumvent parental notification laws.
In several cases, according to Crutcher, the caller was encouraged to conceal her age or her boyfriend's age or give false names to lessen the chance that the boyfriend could be charged with statutory rape.
Planned Parenthood officials sharply criticized the Life Dynamics campaign.
Now I know some will criticize this tactic but for those that do I would ask this. How would this be any different than an "I" team type news investigation doing the same thing ? They do it all the time to expose laws being broken etc. If they are breaking the law then it should be looked into at least.
and i would very much agree with you on that, luv. (and of course if that really were the case any parent that would let their 13 year old have a 22 year old boyfriend needs to have their head examined but thats a different issue :)
"How would this be any different than an "I" team type news investigation doing the same thing ?"
It wouldn't. In this case it's not really a big deal who did the research. Though I still disagree somewhat with the tactic. Most "I-Team" investigations that I recall involve someone going in as just a regular customer, only to get screwed somehow. In this case, they're putting the person answering the phone in a difficult spot.
Now first consider that if someone is working at an abortion clinic, in all liklihood they are of the type who believe that if someone is going to get an abortion, it's better to do it somewhere like a clinic than trying to do it yourself or whatever other crazy things they believed a 13 year old to be capable of. So if someone comes calls up and presents themselves as being in need of an abortion, yet has reasons as to why they wouldn't want to come into the clinic, that's putting the person answering the phone in a place where they have a difficult choice to make. If they obey the law and tell the girl they can do nothing for her and make no effort to help her, there's a possibility she could end up hurting herself or possibly even dead. If they do try and help her circumvent the laws, they may face prosecution. That's why abortion should be legal.
It has nothing to do with wether abortion should be legal. Oh yes we want to make sure we're protecting 22 year olds having sex with a 13 year old because we wouldn't want a 13 year old to make a bad decisions. 13 years olds shouldn't be making decisiions on abortions because they aren't old enough to make decisions period. At that point it should be up to the 13 year olds parent. But in many cases we also want to keep the parents in the dark even though they are responsible for them until they are 18. Why? If these clinics aren't reporting or circumventing statutory rape laws they are breaking the law plain and simple. It's not their posisition to decide which laws they can break especially those piddly little things like statutory rape. Nah lets worry more about making sure a 13 year old who has been impregnated by a 22 0r 32 year old can have that abortion and keep it a secret, geez. Just as much as I defended the patients right to privacy and nonharassment of doctors etc because abortion is legal I would denounce the clinic breaking the law based on what they think is right. A law is a law. Work to change it if you don't like it. It will be interesting to see how some react and have reacted. Seems they will defend abortion at all costs.
If they obey the law and tell the girl they can do nothing for her and make no effort to help her, there's a possibility she could end up hurting herself or possibly even dead. If they do try and help her circumvent the laws, they may face prosecution.
That's why abortion should be legal.
How absurd!
...Thats why drugs should be legal ...Thats why murder should be legal. ...Thats why child pornography should be legal. ...Thats why speeding should be legal. ...Thats why shooting dope should be legal. ...Thats why stealing cars should be legal.
We could go on and on if that is your premise.
Even people in difficult spots still need to obey the law.
Securing the unequivocal, inalienable right to reproductive choice is absolutely pivotal if women are to freely determine their own, comprehensive destinies.
The alternative is to perpetually have their lives controlled by individual men and male-dominated interests that gain from oppressing females, in a variety of ways.
They range from sexual exploitation, to spousal abuse, to the gross pay inequity and the virtual peonage that make sweatshops, with their predominantly female employees, such an obscenely profitable prospect for their greedy owners.
Some men -- especially the demagogues of the religious/political Right who cry crocodile tears for fetuses but invariably resist any governmental programs designed to enhance the quality of life of poor and otherwise disadvantaged, already-born children -- know exactly what the abortion question is really about.
Namely, the retention of a "man's world" in which stupendous wealth, enormous power and disgusting degrees of privilege accrue to upper-class white men who exploit many classifications of "lesser" human beings, all over this planet, none more than women.
So, in addition to preventing a huge American component from joining the quarter-million women and girls who perish annually worldwide because it's their fatal misfortune to live in benighted societies where abortion is outlawed, our right to abortion must be safeguarded and expanded (giving easier access particularly to the impoverished) to keep rightwing zealots within special-interest ranks from slamming shut the door on ALL of the hardwon advances females have secured for themselves through decades of a struggle that's far from being completely successful.
We need to see past the Medieval mumbo-jumbo, the false piety, the semantic and scientific imprecision, the contrived sensationalism, and the staggering hypocrisy of archconservatism...and clearly recognize that the entire effort to keep "uppity" women and feminists down is a control issue with ramifications for not just females but various minorities and workers as well.
If our sisters are successfully exploited and oppressed, do you think your status as an African American, or a lowerclass, white male wage earner, will not diminish in down-pulling concert? While The Man or the boss (Guess what, they're the same guy!) laughs all the way to the bank.
Conversely, as the inspiring anthem Bread and Roses, so aptly puts it: "The rising of the women is the rising of the race."
Support the right to choice, both for obvious reasons, plus those not always so readily apparent.
Securing the unequivocal, inalienable right to reproductive choice is absolutely pivotal if women are to freely determine their own, comprehensive destinies.
Unequivocal? Hardly. You mean the ambiguous, self serving right to reproductive slaughter is undeniably selfish, self-serving, and non respective of the life within and has a negative effect physically, spiritually, and emotionally on the destiny of the women who commits the act of abortion and is a most horrid, gruesome and barbaric act to be incurred by the innocent life within.
The alternative is to perpetually have their lives controlled by individual men and male-dominated interests that gain from oppressing females, in a variety of ways.
Men can control your life if you let them, if that is your desire, irrelivant of abortion. There are more women who support the pro-life views than men.
The alternative is to have the intestinal fortitude to see the greater good in overcoming the obstacle of a difficult personal circumstance and move towards the goal of bringing a life into the world and giving the child a shot at life.
They range from sexual exploitation, to spousal abuse, to the gross pay inequity and the virtual peonage that make sweatshops, with their predominantly female employees, such an obscenely profitable prospect for their greedy owners.
Obviously you are coming from a man hater's perspective. If your tirade was true, than churches dominated by male rulers would be in support of such things. Spousal abuse (partner abuse) occurs more frequently with same sex couples than in the man/woman relationship.
Some men -- especially the demagogues of the religious/political Right who cry crocodile tears for fetuses but invariably resist any governmental programs designed to enhance the quality of life of poor and otherwise disadvantaged, already-born children -- know exactly what the abortion question is really about. Â Â
Bullshit! Religious institutions used to run orphanages and the children grew up loved and in a family environment as compared to the government run social services system of today which lets children die, has lost children in their system and has abuses in the "solution" they have incorporated.
Remember, most charitable organizations are religious based.
Some men have backbones and realize that life is higher up on the totem pole than personal momentary choice.
know exactly what the abortion question is really about.
Let me explain this to you very, very carefully. Please read slowly so you will understand.
Abortion is MURDER.
Life (and the right to life) is more important than choice. All life.
The baby has rights not YET recognized by our society.
People with compassion and love of humanity care about that little individual as equally as they care about the mother.
Namely, the retention of a "man's world" in which stupendous wealth, enormous power and disgusting degrees of privilege accrue to upper-class white men who exploit many classifications of "lesser" human beings, all over this planet, none more than women. Â Â
No response necessary. Another man hater tirade.
So, in addition to preventing a huge American component from joining the quarter-million women and girls who perish annually worldwide because it's their fatal misfortune to live in benighted societies where abortion is outlawed, our right to abortion must be safeguarded and expanded (giving easier access particularly to the impoverished) to keep rightwing zealots within special-interest ranks from slamming shut the door on ALL of the hardwon advances females have secured for themselves through decades of a struggle that's far from being completely successful. Â Â
When women have attained their highest level of achievement, they won't rip the youngest of their own to shreds. They won't perform barbaric female circumcisions either.
We need to see past the Medieval mumbo-jumbo, the false piety, the semantic and scientific imprecision, the contrived sensationalism, and the staggering hypocrisy of archconservatism...and clearly recognize that the entire effort to keep "uppity" women and feminists down is a control issue with ramifications for not just females but various minorities and workers as well. Â Â
We need to see past the scam of abortion and see it for what it really is.... MURDER FOR PROFIT ... lets expose a great public relations campaign which has managed to successfully make life irrelevant.
If our sisters are successfully exploited and oppressed, do you think your status as an African American, or a lowerclass, white male wage earner, will not diminish in down-pulling concert? While The Man or the boss (Guess what, they're the same guy!) laughs all the way to the bank. Â Â
Conversely, as the inspiring anthem Bread and Roses, so aptly puts it: "The rising of the women is the rising of the race."
Is this a feminazi organization? Sure seems to be represented as such.
Support the right to choice, both for obvious reasons, plus those not always so readily apparent.
Support the right to life, the obviously positive choice for all involved which becomes apparent if not immediately, later in retrospect.
Securing the unequivocal, inalienable right to reproductive choice is absolutely pivotal if women are to freely determine their own, comprehensive destinies.
To put it bluntly, they choose their destiny when they choose to have sex or not.
A hypothetical scenario (but one rooted in common reality):
A girl named Jessie gets pregnant.
How or why it happened is something we can't possibly determine.
Meaning that we can't legitimately make any condemnatory, ethically supremacist assumptions about her being "careless" or "irresponsible".
Jessie painfully assesses her unique personal circumstance and weighs whether or not to have an abortion.
Should Jessie be the one to make the final decision?
Or Jesse Helms?
And, without knowing her world or walking in her shoes, how can we possibly say she's "selfish" if the choice turns out to be for abortion?
Finally, if you think Jesse Helms or reactionaries like him are the ones who should decide, why wouldn't that be unsufferable moral imperialism based on personal biases...and the very epitome of tyranny?
Abortion may not be pretty, but the reality of countless women's circumstances around the world, through the ages, has frequently made it necessary.
Furthermore, only each particular female, judging her own unique situation, has the legitimate authority to determine what actually constitutes reproductive need.
This isn't a one-size-fits-all kind of thing, or a matter to be imposed from outside by those with abundant biases, presumptions, and ideological axes to grind.
It's both ridiculous and cruel for some hidebound male archconservative in suburban America, say, to sanctimoniously preach to a young girl in perhaps a totally different socio-economic context hundreds or maybe thousands of miles away -- someone he can't know anything about -- that what she might choose to do would be "selfish convenience" or "murder".
On a moral par with someone greedily robbing a bank and killing a teller in the process.
Which is exactly the kind of bogus equivalency manipulative anti-choice propagandists seek to draw with their hyperbolic, sensationalized rhetoric.
In societies descended from patriarchy and blatant paternalism, where sexism has placed countless obstacles before female equality and the realization of basic justice -- and where the chains of backward religious chauvanism still shackle women -- there is no credible ethical basis for the men and male institutions that have greatly benefited from that systemic inequity...to try to forcefully perpetuate that objectively unacceptable, exploitative status quo.
Not on any level, but certainly and especially in connection with attempting to perpetuate the forced baby-maker "role" that has led millions of women and girls, over time, to lose their lives in unlawful and unsafe, blackmarket abortions obtained out of desperation, often performed by organized crime elements working the illegal abortion "trade".
And let's acknowledge the woefully demeaning, profoundly sexist outlook that blithely ascribes to even an initial zygote imagined "rights" greater than the clear, definite rights that already-born, living, breathing, socially functioning females undeniably have -- or ought to, were it not for retrograde, rightwing belittlements of women's essential dignity.
How degrading it is to seriously postulate that even the most rudimentary embryonic entity is more important, in the eyes of God no less, than your sister or mine.
Next thing you know, we'll be hearing that a man's fart is deserving of greater consideration and respect than a grown woman's reproductive control and related, female healthcare issues.
There are only two courses of action regarding abortion that are ultimately defensible.
1. Graciously and honorably permitting those who find themselves with unwanted pregnancies to arrive at their own assessment of what must be done, not predicated on Rush Limbaugh or the Pope, but on what's POSSIBLE in their individual lives, taking every factor involved into deep consideration.
2. Doing everything politically and otherwise possible to prevent unplanned pregnancies in the first place (meaning vastly expanding sex education and contraceptive availablity), and building maximum societal underpinning for new mothers and their babies...so that women and young girls know they'll have a safety net -- at a governmental level -- should it become needed.
Thereby building pivotal confidence for bringing fresh life into this world.
Continuing the archaic outrage of trying to force females to be "barefoot and pregnant" -- Â believing that to be the "proper" women's "place" -- is rank benightedness that can't be allowed to continue.
Finally, guys...
If abortion is so repugnant to you (although I'm certain most of you would get one in a jiffy if males could get "knocked up"), then make certain that Mr. Slippidy Dippidy either doesn't come out to play at all when you go out on a date, or that he's clad in more rubber than can be found this side of the basketball factory.
Continuing the archaic outrage of trying to force females to be "barefoot and pregnant" -- believing that to be the "proper" women's "place" -- is rank benightedness that can't be allowed to continue. Â Â
Talk about demogauging an issue, geez, you're the master, hands down. So tell us first of all did both the man and woman decide to have sex ? If it was consensual then they both knew the risks when they decided to have sex. Many times more than not it doesn't result in pregnancy. When it does, due to biology not some chauvanistic decree the woman gets pregnant. Then it is up to her and only her as to what to do with that child. Limiting abortions would still allow choice. The choice to keep it and or give it up for adoption.
Time and time again I have heard you try to attach anyone who opposes abortion to a political movement and or chauvanistic ideology. But I haven't heard you adress this...
Tell me about the millions of women who oppose abortion are they just to weak in your eyes to see your version of the truth ? Are they merely pawns to those evil males who are manipulated by them ? You don't give women the credit or respect they deserve because they (millions of women) came to that conclusion all on there own that abortion is wrong and they are also able to carry a child but apparently you write them off since they don't fit your agenda or ideology.
Abortion may not be pretty, but the reality of countless women's circumstances around the world, through the ages, has frequently made it necessary.
Countless women's circumstances have made them pregnant. Abortion is not necessary, time is but a moment and when the child is born, Adoption is the best alternative when the women chooses not to keep the child created during her momentary act of sex.
Furthermore, only each particular female, judging her own unique situation, has the legitimate authority to determine what actually constitutes reproductive need.
The complexity of any given circumstance is not resolved by murder.
This isn't a one-size-fits-all kind of thing, or a matter to be imposed from outside by those with abundant biases, presumptions, and ideological axes to grind. Â Â
Abortion is not an act of self-defense.
It's both ridiculous and cruel for some hidebound male archconservative in suburban America, say, to sanctimoniously preach to a young girl in perhaps a totally different socio-economic context hundreds or maybe thousands of miles away -- someone he can't know anything about -- that what she might choose to do would be "selfish convenience" or "murder". Â Â
Whether rich or poor, all know the difference between right and wrong.
On a moral par with someone greedily robbing a bank and killing a teller in the process. Which is exactly the kind of bogus equivalency manipulative anti-choice propagandists seek to draw with their hyperbolic, sensationalized rhetoric.
Murder is murder no matter who the victim is. Both are human aren't they?
In societies descended from patriarchy and blatant paternalism, where sexism has placed countless obstacles before female equality and the realization of basic justice -- and where the chains of backward religious chauvanism still shackle women -- there is no credible ethical basis for the men and male institutions that have greatly benefited from that systemic inequity...to try to forcefully perpetuate that objectively unacceptable, exploitative status quo. Â Â
Another male bashing, religious bashing sentiment with no factual basis today.
Not on any level, but certainly and especially in connection with attempting to perpetuate the forced baby-maker "role" that has led millions of women and girls, over time, to lose their lives in unlawful and unsafe, blackmarket abortions obtained out of desperation, often performed by organized crime elements working the illegal abortion "trade". Â Â
Insert picture of women with coat hanger hanging out and blood dribbling, Oh, what some will do!
Dennis Rahkonen - (PFID:13d34f) - 04:07am Jun 3, 2002 PST (# 776 of 779)
The people united cannot be defeated! And let's acknowledge the woefully demeaning, profoundly sexist outlook that blithely ascribes to even an initial zygote imagined "rights" greater than the clear, definite rights that already-born, living, breathing, socially functioning females undeniably have -- or ought to, were it not for retrograde, rightwing belittlements of women's essential dignity. Â Â
Even the tiniest among us should have rights. Not just the strong, breathing, socially functioning, sexually active female.
How degrading it is to seriously postulate that even the most rudimentary embryonic entity is more important, in the eyes of God no less, than your sister or mine.
Even the tiniest among us has a basic right to life.
Next thing you know, we'll be hearing that a man's fart is deserving of greater consideration and respect than a grown woman's reproductive control and related, female healthcare issues.
Control, interesting... It's all about control... give them a heroin filled needle, a grown woman should have control over her after hours partying... she has the right to have fun as she sees fit.
There are only two courses of action regarding abortion that are ultimately defensible.
1. Graciously and honorably permitting those who find themselves with unwanted pregnancies to arrive at their own assessment of what must be done, not predicated on Rush Limbaugh or the Pope, but on what's POSSIBLE in their individual lives, taking every factor involved into deep consideration.
1) Respect and recognition of the right to life of every human from conception to natural death.
2. Doing everything politically and otherwise possible to prevent unplanned pregnancies in the first place (meaning vastly expanding sex education and contraceptive availablity), and building maximum societal underpinning for new mothers and their babies...so that women and young girls know they'll have a safety net -- at a governmental level -- should it become needed. Â Â
Things will always happen no matter how much education, protection, etc is provided. The safety net is... this time will quickly pass and when the baby is born, if you don't want to keep it, you can place this precious life with a family who will treat the child as a precious life.
If abortion is so repugnant to you (although I'm certain most of you would get one in a jiffy if males could get "knocked up"), then make certain that Mr. Slippidy Dippidy either doesn't come out to play at all when you go out on a date, or that he's clad in more rubber than can be found this side of the basketball factory.
Condoms, a 1 in 3 chance of success, especially among the young. Glad they arent in a plane w/parachute having a 1 in 3 rate of success!
Finally, Abortion is not an alternative. Life is precious.
See, this is why I get such a kick out of anti-choice zealots...
They're goonier than chipmunks with antlers.
But here's the difference between me (and others of my "ilk") and them:
While I would never act in any repressive way toward them based on the opinions I have regarding their retrograde views -- say shoot them and mount them on my wall next to my tusked mouse and flying mole -- they would abolish abortion in a New York minute if they ever attained power to do so.
Anyone espousing terminating a pregnancy would be hounded.
Anyone performing an abortion would be jailed.
And, without question, the current extremism directed against prominent abortion providers -- ranging from anthrax threats to assassinations -- would gain implicit acceptance among that broad body of anti-choice rank-and-filers who are rigidly and irredeemably convinced that abortion is "evil" and just another form of "murder".
Opinions carried to force and violence to get others to conform with them...are as wrong as anything can possibly be.
That's why individual choice on this profoundly personal question is the only truly moral position there is, because it alone is respectful of others' needs and wishes.
It all boils down to:
If you think abortion is awful, don't get one.
But permit those who feel differently to act in accordance with their beliefs and requirements.
One side wants to tyrannize; the other side respects female liberty to have -- or not have -- an abortion.
I certainly don't consider myself an extremists or anti abortion zealot. I condemn the extremist tactics used by the extremist element. I am not an absolutist, in cases of rape, incest or a mothers life being endangered I think it should be permissable.
Yes I will work legally and ethically within our system of laws to end a horrid practice and change that law. Slavery was once a legal and accepted practice as well. I think that one day generations will perhaps look back at us and wonder who we could have been so wrong as to allow human babies to be killed inside of the mother. Because they simply didn't want them and saw them as a tissue mass.
You claim
It all boils down to:
If you think abortion is awful, don't get one.
If you think murder is awful, don't murder someone.
But permit those who feel differently to act in accordance with their beliefs and requirements.
Because they simply didn't want them and saw them as a tissue mass. "
Really think it is that simple?
No actually it's simpler, they just don't want them for some reason. So they kill it. The reasons for not wanting it might be numerous but they don't want them or they wouldn't be killing them would they ?
I can't debate this issue with people who choose to load the language. You obviously take the same approach as Paula, with little movement and little beyond emotional hyperbole.
Can't do it. This issue cries out for reasonable debate, but there's not give in either side.
I can't debate this issue with people who choose to load the language. You obviously take the same approach as Paula, with little movement and little beyond emotional hyperbole.
Can't do it. This issue cries out for reasonable debate, but there's not give in either side.
I agree that this issue needs reasonable debate. So why you choose to turn away from it or lump me in with an extremist view is beyond me. I am not going to argue semantics. But my last post simply said this.
No actually it's simpler, they just don't want them for some reason. So they kill it. The reasons for not wanting it might be numerous but they don't want them or they wouldn't be killing them would they ?
O.K what was innacurate with that post ?
Does someone having an abortion actually want the child ? Are there numerous reasons for them not to want a child ? Yes I would think so, but do you feel different ? What could you construe as loading the language with emotional hyperbole in that post ? I am sure I and others get emotional but it's an emotional issue. We are talking about ending a human life. I am willing to listen and debate and feel it's needed. As I have said before that I feel the extremists on both sides do more harm than good.
You asked if I thought it was that simple. I answered yes If you don't want or like the answer to a question then don't ask. If it's the terminology you have a problem with fine, say so specifically. adress it And I will tell you which terms I don't like and we can go from there.
I can't debate this issue with people who choose to load the language. You obviously take the same approach as Paula, with little movement and little beyond emotional hyperbole
You really need to read back thru all of the threads to see that I do have movement and understanding.
I would be the first to comfort someone who confided to me that they had an abortion. I am compassionate to those who have made the decision, many of whom live with regrets their entire lives.
I certainly don't consider myself an extremists or anti abortion zealot. I condemn the extremist tactics used by the extremist element. I am not an absolutist, in cases of rape, incest or a mothers life being endangered I think it should be permissable.
I am of similiar feelings, being if the mother would definitely lose her life than do the best to save both, but moreso the mother.
Yes I will work legally and ethically within our system of laws to end a horrid practice and change that law. Slavery was once a legal and accepted practice as well. I think that one day generations will perhaps look back at us and wonder who we could have been so wrong as to allow human babies to be killed inside of the mother. Because they simply didn't want them and saw them as a tissue mass. Â Â
Abortion is no more "murder" than George Bush is an intellectual and a statesman.
It's a vital women's rights and healthcare issue.
NO limits or obstacles must be placed before our sisters' open option to control their own reproductive destinies.
NO waiting periods, NO parental notification.
NO denial based on inability to pay.
It's a question of who decides -- Jessie, the hypothetical yet representative young woman who finds herself with an unacceptable pregnancy, or the Jesse Helms of this country, who slander such females, smugly pontificating from positions of imagined moral superiority that abortion seekers are little more than sluts and killers.
My stance in defense of our nation's majority to NOT be ruled by rightwing fanaticism has been labeled "bullshit".
The absolutely correct view that my young nieces ought to be the ones to freely determine when and if they should ever need abortions was termed "crap".
All this under a fraudulent and medically/scientifically/legally invalid contention that even the first union of sperm and egg is a "person" that ought to have "rights" which would supercede those of the female in which it resides.
Equal rights for all living things?!
Where were your tears for the men, women, children and fetuses of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a half a century ago? Or Vietnam? Where are they now for the civilian dead in Afghanistan? Will conservatives care one iota about the babies who'll die if Bush gets his way and America launches an air and land invasion to effect a "regime change" in Iraq? Reactionaries sure haven't cared about the Iraqi kids who've died as a result of our embargo.
And what about all the shuntings of funding for programs to help needy American children, in a variety of urgent ways, that have gone to corporate welfare or Pentagon spending instead...because conservatives never met a federal outlay they could support, unless it made the rich richer and the powerful more powerful?
With charity's food shelves growing bare, with healthcare unaffordable for millions, with welfare "reform" having caused many thousands to slip through the cracks and simply disappear from social tracking...aren't countless kids being cruelly victimized by the awesome social irresponsibility of those who fixate solely on embryos in the abortion debate, but callously deny the already living, impoverished and desperate, requisite federal help?
Including assistance to incredibly hard-pressed women, some of whom are mothers already, who simply CANNOT find a tenable possibility for feeding another mouth.
Adoption? Do you think females in trouble don't ponder it? But there are often lengthy waiting periods, and possibilities for rejection. Meanwhile, the fear and desperation grows.
Against this backdrop, our chauvanistic culture continues to treat women mainly as sex objects, instilling in teenage males and young adults a pervasive assumption that "girls" exist just for their carnal pleasure. Date rape is unquestionably a major component in the abortion equation.
All the logic, reason, and true morality is on the pro-choice side.
The anti-choice argument invariably comes down to that incredibly degrading combination of presumptive assertions: women who get pregnant are easy and sleazy, and consequently morally unfit to abort an "innocent" "baby" or "child".
Hands down, the pro-choice stance wins, as it definitely should, to rational minds in a free society.
I'm here to use my homemade catapult to hurl aluminum-foil covered summer sausages -- with Christmas lights -- across the sky above the Wal-Mart parking lot.
Just to watch people's mouth's drop and say: "What the Hell was that?!"
Kit Zupan 5/29/02 9:38am
To me it is just the opposite. It has been my experience that a pro-abortion tactic is the dramatization of women littering the streets because they chose to get illegal abortions. Or like some horror movie, you see women screaming and bloody running to hospitals with coat hangers hanging out from between their legs.
There are extremists in every cause. Should every cause be abandoned then?
Pro life people are wonderful and compassionate from my experience.
Haven't you experienced some wonderful and compassionate pro life advocates???
I do not agree with the very minute few who use such nasty tactics to prove a point.
As a matter of fact, it is not about the money, at least not from the pro life view. It is about the right to life plain and simple.
Did you ever read any books by Bernard Nathanson? You seem to be well versed, maybe you should read some of his material to see how the whole abortion thing became an issue in the begining. It was all about Public Relations and Money. They masterminded an infallable plan to put the church in the hot seat and used the emotionalism of "rights being taken away" to seal the deal. All for the almighty dollar.
Making a book? Bwaaaaaahahahaha. Lets put our nuts to good use and have them go on missions to hunt the Al Queda terrorist.
"Haven't you experienced some wonderful and compassionate pro life advocates??? "
My sister-in-law is a great person. Good Mom. Festoons the family SUV with bumper stickers. The latest is "Life is not a Choice," or something like that.
But if I ever had a mind to talk with her about the subject, I figure I'd get an earful.
I've said before, I think extremists have hijacked the issue of abortion. There's no Give and take on either side. Which means when something does "give" it's not gonna be pretty.
I've tried on this board to just get agreements on terms. Jethro, the king of pro-life here, refused to use the term "pro-choice. " Even when I offered to use the term pro-life even though the illogical implication is that people on the other side are anti-life.
"I do not agree with the very minute few who use such nasty tactics to prove a point. "
Why do you think their numbers are "very minute," and why don't you agree with them?
Rick 5/30/02 11:23am
You ought to give it a try.
Isn't is because the baby does not have a choice?
Aren't those on the other side against the life of the child? I mean, they chose to support the mother over the issue, whereas; the pro-life support the rights of the baby to live.
So Pro-choice is not an acceptable term for you, either?
Rick 5/30/02 11:23am
I do not agree with harassment of doctors, nurses, etc. or their families because the ultimate goal is to 1)present another perspective so that they change their mind and realize for themselves how horrid abortion is and 2)help them have such a change of heart that they no longer participate in abortions. When you do something like that (harassment), you close a persons spirit and they cannot hear you anyway. It gives them more reason to fight for their cause.
Also, the doctors children have a right to live in peace, as do his family, relatives and other innocents.
It is a much better approach to have a dialogue going and befriend those with opposing ideas. Both peoples learn from the relationship.
I think their numbers are very minute based on those I have come into contact with and their participation, and based on who the participants know and what they are doing in the pro-life movement.
Rick 5/30/02 11:41am
So Pro-choice is not an acceptable term for you, either?
Pro choice is not a label or term I would personally identify with because my objective is to speak for the innocent who have no choice (yet) in the right to their life.
You don't have to identify with it, but is acceptable or accurate to describe people who feel abortion should be legal?
Rick 5/30/02 11:59am
What is wrong with pro-abortion? That seems to be a more accurate description of those who support the right to have an abortion.
Pro-choice would indicate that all parties involved have a choice and that is not the case.
Maybe some new terms should be introduced. Can you think of any?
pro legal abortion rights choice = PLARC
pro rights of babies lives = PROBL
Are you a Plarc or a Probl supporter?
come on, you can come up with a better one cant ya?
"Maybe some new terms should be introduced. Can you think of any?"
Maybe you can answer the question.
Pro-choice would indicate that all parties involved have a choice and that is not the case.
Therefore, since the term doesn't fit I cannot justify using it.
I'll let the other people in favor of legal abortion give you their take on the term "Pro-Life" and what it means to them.
I have neither the time nor the inclination.
But consider your inability to move half a centimeter on this issue and your either intentional or unintentional misinterpretation of the tem "pro-choice." It may only be a matter of time before you're snapping pictures and shouting at 16 year old girls on one of the worst days of their young life.
And that would be unfortunate.
i dunno about you guys, but i don't ever recall anyone who's pro-choice use the term in reference to the unborn child, paula.
How about the term "Pro abortion choice"?
btw: I don't think the term "Pro Life" is accurate either. I prefer "Anti Abortion". Many people that are anti abortion are pro capital punishment, therefore they cannot be "Pro Life".
thank you jt :) of course, you know that jethro would argue that point with you. speaking of j.b., where's he been lately?
Rick,
That's right I did draw a corolation between the two. of course PETA doesn't go out of there way to condem it. My point was simply that like the animal rights movement they have extremists who in many cases turn someone undecided or nuetral away from a cause. someone who is already a member of PETA will probably be quietly joyous of hearing of ALF's brand of terrorism. But to someone who might care about animal rights or even nuetral on the issue might very well be turned off by it. Same goes for the people taking pictures of women going in to have an abortion. I detest abortion as a sick and sad reflection on the value or non value of life. The difference is that even though I am opposed to abortion I think it's wrong to do so where PETA etc say nothing or little. of ALF's tactics.
Of course it's more distasteful, gee let me think about it Rick, ending a human life or taking a picture of a woman having an abortion, which is worse hmmmm ? Obviously you knew the answer so why you asked it is interesting. You seem to have a problem with the terminology I used, why? I don't know but I think your possibly splitting hairs on the issue I think what the picture takers are doing is wrong. Period, end of sentence.
As long as abortion is legal I would defend that persons right to do so in a non threatning enviroment. I don't think at any time it would be a good tactic frankly. Obviously I'd like to see abortion be banned again except in certain cases. But until that day I will use legal and ethical means in which to bring about change in the system. There are ways of doing so and unfortunatley for an unborn child, the extreme elements of the pro-life movement sometimes do more harm than good in bringing about that change. Blowing up clinics, harrassing women getting abortions, killing doctors, nurses etc Are wrong and also the incorrect way to bring change about.
speaking of j.b., where's he been lately?
Jail?
Seriously, I don't know.
Rick 5/30/02 12:38pm
So nice of you to allow them the freedom of speech. Too bad you cannot offer those same freedoms (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... and all that comes with it) to the innocent life who's destiny is to be born.
Don't start something you can't finish!
PULEEEEEZZZE get over your self.
......And it may only be a matter of time when you are voyeristically snapping pictures of sixteen old girls for your own pleasure.
Ditto!
All you have to do is go back and read all of my threads to get a feel of where I stand on the abortion issue.
Are you here to discuss the issue or are you here for an argument?
THX 1138 5/30/02 1:01pm
I understand the term pro-life to mean "from conception to natural death".
I think the term pro life has been watered down from the original intent of the term.
Pro life by it's most strictest definition means believing in no abortion, no euthanasia, no assisted suicide, and no death penalty, I believe.
JEEETTTTTHHHROOOO! HEEELP! Their being nasty to me... quick come save meeeee.
just kidding. Bring it on.
Seems like you're doing just fine on your own Paula :)
And if you're calling Jethro for help in debating, you are in more trouble than you thought ;)
Interesting.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54079,00.html
Now I know some will criticize this tactic but for those that do I would ask this. How would this be any different than an "I" team type news investigation doing the same thing ? They do it all the time to expose laws being broken etc. If they are breaking the law then it should be looked into at least.
and i would very much agree with you on that, luv. (and of course if that really were the case any parent that would let their 13 year old have a 22 year old boyfriend needs to have their head examined but thats a different issue :)
"How would this be any different than an "I" team type news investigation doing the same thing ?"
It wouldn't. In this case it's not really a big deal who did the research. Though I still disagree somewhat with the tactic. Most "I-Team" investigations that I recall involve someone going in as just a regular customer, only to get screwed somehow. In this case, they're putting the person answering the phone in a difficult spot.
Now first consider that if someone is working at an abortion clinic, in all liklihood they are of the type who believe that if someone is going to get an abortion, it's better to do it somewhere like a clinic than trying to do it yourself or whatever other crazy things they believed a 13 year old to be capable of. So if someone comes calls up and presents themselves as being in need of an abortion, yet has reasons as to why they wouldn't want to come into the clinic, that's putting the person answering the phone in a place where they have a difficult choice to make. If they obey the law and tell the girl they can do nothing for her and make no effort to help her, there's a possibility she could end up hurting herself or possibly even dead. If they do try and help her circumvent the laws, they may face prosecution. That's why abortion should be legal.
It has nothing to do with wether abortion should be legal. Oh yes we want to make sure we're protecting 22 year olds having sex with a 13 year old because we wouldn't want a 13 year old to make a bad decisions. 13 years olds shouldn't be making decisiions on abortions because they aren't old enough to make decisions period. At that point it should be up to the 13 year olds parent. But in many cases we also want to keep the parents in the dark even though they are responsible for them until they are 18. Why? If these clinics aren't reporting or circumventing statutory rape laws they are breaking the law plain and simple. It's not their posisition to decide which laws they can break especially those piddly little things like statutory rape. Nah lets worry more about making sure a 13 year old who has been impregnated by a 22 0r 32 year old can have that abortion and keep it a secret, geez. Just as much as I defended the patients right to privacy and nonharassment of doctors etc because abortion is legal I would denounce the clinic breaking the law based on what they think is right. A law is a law. Work to change it if you don't like it. It will be interesting to see how some react and have reacted. Seems they will defend abortion at all costs.
Allison Wonderland 5/31/02 12:08pm
How absurd!
...Thats why drugs should be legal
...Thats why murder should be legal.
...Thats why child pornography should be legal.
...Thats why speeding should be legal.
...Thats why shooting dope should be legal.
...Thats why stealing cars should be legal.
We could go on and on if that is your premise.
Even people in difficult spots still need to obey the law.
Securing the unequivocal, inalienable right to reproductive choice is absolutely pivotal if women are to freely determine their own, comprehensive destinies.
The alternative is to perpetually have their lives controlled by individual men and male-dominated interests that gain from oppressing females, in a variety of ways.
They range from sexual exploitation, to spousal abuse, to the gross pay inequity and the virtual peonage that make sweatshops, with their predominantly female employees, such an obscenely profitable prospect for their greedy owners.
Some men -- especially the demagogues of the religious/political Right who cry crocodile tears for fetuses but invariably resist any governmental programs designed to enhance the
quality of life of poor and otherwise disadvantaged, already-born children -- know exactly what the abortion question is really about.
Namely, the retention of a "man's world" in which stupendous wealth, enormous power and
disgusting degrees of privilege accrue to upper-class white men who exploit many classifications of "lesser" human beings, all over this planet, none more than women.
So, in addition to preventing a huge American component from joining the quarter-million
women and girls who perish annually worldwide because it's their fatal misfortune to live in benighted societies where abortion is outlawed, our right to abortion must be safeguarded and expanded (giving easier access particularly to the impoverished) to keep
rightwing zealots within special-interest ranks from slamming shut the door on ALL of the hardwon advances females have secured for themselves through decades of
a struggle that's far from being completely successful.
We need to see past the Medieval mumbo-jumbo, the false piety, the semantic and scientific imprecision, the contrived sensationalism, and the staggering hypocrisy of
archconservatism...and clearly recognize that the entire effort to keep "uppity" women and feminists down is a control issue with ramifications for not just females but various minorities and workers as well.
If our sisters are successfully exploited and oppressed, do you think your status as an
African American, or a lowerclass, white male wage earner, will not diminish in down-pulling concert? While The Man or the boss (Guess what, they're the same guy!) laughs all the way to the bank.
Conversely, as the inspiring anthem Bread and Roses, so aptly puts it: "The rising of the women is the rising of the race."
Support the right to choice, both for obvious reasons, plus those not always so readily apparent.
Dennis Rahkonen 6/1/02 5:28am
Unequivocal? Hardly. You mean the ambiguous, self serving right to reproductive slaughter is undeniably selfish, self-serving, and non respective of the life within and has a negative effect physically, spiritually, and emotionally on the destiny of the women who commits the act of abortion and is a most horrid, gruesome and barbaric act to be incurred by the innocent life within.
Men can control your life if you let them, if that is your desire, irrelivant of abortion. There are more women who support the pro-life views than men.
The alternative is to have the intestinal fortitude to see the greater good in overcoming the obstacle of a difficult personal circumstance and move towards the goal of bringing a life into the world and giving the child a shot at life.
Obviously you are coming from a man hater's perspective. If your tirade was true, than churches dominated by male rulers would be in support of such things. Spousal abuse (partner abuse) occurs more frequently with same sex couples than in the man/woman relationship.
Bullshit! Religious institutions used to run orphanages and the children grew up loved and in a family environment as compared to the government run social services system of today which lets children die, has lost children in their system and has abuses in the "solution" they have incorporated.
Remember, most charitable organizations are religious based.
Some men have backbones and realize that life is higher up on the totem pole than personal momentary choice.
Let me explain this to you very, very carefully. Please read slowly so you will understand.
Abortion is MURDER.
Life (and the right to life) is more important than choice. All life.
The baby has rights not YET recognized by our society.
People with compassion and love of humanity care about that little individual as equally as they care about the mother.
No response necessary. Another man hater tirade.
When women have attained their highest level of achievement, they won't rip the youngest of their own to shreds. They won't perform barbaric female circumcisions either.
We need to see past the scam of abortion and see it for what it really is.... MURDER FOR PROFIT ... lets expose a great public relations campaign which has managed to successfully make life irrelevant.
Is this a feminazi organization? Sure seems to be represented as such.
Support the right to life, the obviously positive choice for all involved which becomes apparent if not immediately, later in retrospect.
Badabing Badabam!
Securing the unequivocal, inalienable right to reproductive choice is absolutely pivotal if women are to freely determine their own, comprehensive destinies.
To put it bluntly, they choose their destiny when they choose to have sex or not.
Dennis Rahkonen 6/1/02 5:28am
Wacky stuff. You've got little faith in men or women. You're assumption is that women are weak or stupid, and that men are all powerful and evil.
JESSIE, OR JESSE?
A hypothetical scenario (but one rooted in common reality):
A girl named Jessie gets pregnant.
How or why it happened is something we can't possibly determine.
Meaning that we can't legitimately make any condemnatory, ethically supremacist assumptions about her being "careless" or "irresponsible".
Jessie painfully assesses her unique personal circumstance and weighs whether or not to have an abortion.
Should Jessie be the one to make the final decision?
Or Jesse Helms?
And, without knowing her world or walking in her shoes, how can we possibly say she's "selfish" if the choice turns out to be for abortion?
Finally, if you think Jesse Helms or reactionaries like him are the ones who should decide, why wouldn't that be unsufferable moral imperialism based on personal biases...and the very epitome of tyranny?
I'd like to hear her unique story. I'm sure it has something to do with oppression of women and a rich, middle aged white man.
Abortion may not be pretty, but the reality of countless women's circumstances around the world, through the ages, has frequently made it necessary.
Furthermore, only each particular female, judging her own unique situation, has the legitimate authority to determine what actually constitutes reproductive need.
This isn't a one-size-fits-all kind of thing, or a matter to be imposed from outside
by those with abundant biases, presumptions, and ideological axes to grind.
It's both ridiculous and cruel for some hidebound male archconservative in suburban America, say, to sanctimoniously preach to a young girl in perhaps a totally different socio-economic context hundreds or maybe thousands of miles away -- someone he
can't know anything about -- that what she might choose to do would be "selfish convenience" or "murder".
On a moral par with someone greedily robbing a bank and killing a teller in the process.
Which is exactly the kind of bogus equivalency manipulative anti-choice propagandists seek to draw with their hyperbolic, sensationalized rhetoric.
In societies descended from patriarchy and blatant paternalism, where sexism has placed
countless obstacles before female equality and the realization of basic justice -- and where
the chains of backward religious chauvanism still shackle women -- there is no credible ethical basis for the men and male institutions that have greatly benefited from that systemic inequity...to try to forcefully perpetuate that objectively unacceptable, exploitative status quo.
Not on any level, but certainly and especially in connection with attempting to perpetuate
the forced baby-maker "role" that has led millions of women and girls, over time, to lose their lives in unlawful and unsafe, blackmarket abortions obtained out of desperation, often performed by organized crime elements working the illegal abortion "trade".
And let's acknowledge the woefully demeaning, profoundly sexist outlook that blithely ascribes to even an initial zygote imagined "rights" greater than the clear, definite rights that already-born, living, breathing, socially functioning females undeniably have -- or ought to, were it not for retrograde, rightwing belittlements of women's essential dignity.
How degrading it is to seriously postulate that even the most rudimentary embryonic entity is more important, in the eyes of God no less, than your sister or mine.
Next thing you know, we'll be hearing that a man's fart is deserving of greater consideration and respect than a grown woman's reproductive control and related, female healthcare issues.
There are only two courses of action regarding abortion that are ultimately defensible.
1. Graciously and honorably permitting those who find themselves with unwanted pregnancies to arrive at their own assessment of what must be done, not predicated on Rush Limbaugh or the Pope, but on what's POSSIBLE in their individual lives, taking every factor involved into deep consideration.
2. Doing everything politically and otherwise possible to prevent unplanned pregnancies in the first place (meaning vastly expanding sex education and contraceptive availablity), and
building maximum societal underpinning for new mothers and their babies...so that women
and young girls know they'll have a safety net -- at a governmental level -- should it become needed.
Thereby building pivotal confidence for bringing fresh life into this world.
Continuing the archaic outrage of trying to force females to be "barefoot and pregnant" --
 believing that to be the "proper" women's "place" -- is rank benightedness that can't be allowed to continue.
Finally, guys...
If abortion is so repugnant to you (although I'm certain most of you would get one in a jiffy if males could get "knocked up"), then make certain that Mr. Slippidy Dippidy either doesn't come out to play at all when you go out on a date, or that he's clad in more rubber than can be found this side of the basketball factory.
I'm certain most of you would get one in a jiffy if males could get "knocked up
No Dennis, that's YOU you're thinking of.
Dennis,
Talk about demogauging an issue, geez, you're the master, hands down.
So tell us first of all did both the man and woman decide to have sex ? If it was consensual then they both knew the risks when they decided to have sex. Many times more than not it doesn't result in pregnancy. When it does, due to biology not some chauvanistic decree the woman gets pregnant. Then it is up to her and only her as to what to do with that child. Limiting abortions would still allow choice. The choice to keep it and or give it up for adoption.
Time and time again I have heard you try to attach anyone who opposes abortion to a political movement and or chauvanistic ideology. But I haven't heard you adress this...
Tell me about the millions of women who oppose abortion are they just to weak in your eyes to see your version of the truth ? Are they merely pawns to those evil males who are manipulated by them ?
You don't give women the credit or respect they deserve because they (millions of women) came to that conclusion all on there own that abortion is wrong and they are also able to carry a child but apparently you write them off since they don't fit your agenda or ideology.
Dennis Rahkonen 6/3/02 4:07am
Does Planned Parenthood pay you by the word regardless of how much crap you put out?
Countless women's circumstances have made them pregnant. Abortion is not necessary, time is but a moment and when the child is born, Adoption is the best alternative when the women chooses not to keep the child created during her momentary act of sex.
The complexity of any given circumstance is not resolved by murder.
Abortion is not an act of self-defense.
Whether rich or poor, all know the difference between right and wrong.
Murder is murder no matter who the victim is. Both are human aren't they?
Another male bashing, religious bashing sentiment with no factual basis today.
Insert picture of women with coat hanger hanging out and blood dribbling, Oh, what some will do!
Dennis Rahkonen - (PFID:13d34f) - 04:07am Jun 3, 2002 PST (# 776 of 779)
Even the tiniest among us should have rights. Not just the strong, breathing, socially functioning, sexually active female.
Even the tiniest among us has a basic right to life.
Control, interesting... It's all about control... give them a heroin filled needle, a grown woman should have control over her after hours partying... she has the right to have fun as she sees fit.
1) Respect and recognition of the right to life of every human from conception to natural death.
Things will always happen no matter how much education, protection, etc is provided. The safety net is... this time will quickly pass and when the baby is born, if you don't want to keep it, you can place this precious life with a family who will treat the child as a precious life.
Condoms, a 1 in 3 chance of success, especially among the young. Glad they arent in a plane w/parachute having a 1 in 3 rate of success!
Finally, Abortion is not an alternative. Life is precious.
See, this is why I get such a kick out of anti-choice zealots...
They're goonier than chipmunks with antlers.
But here's the difference between me (and others of my "ilk") and them:
While I would never act in any repressive way toward them based on the opinions I have regarding their retrograde views -- say shoot them and mount them on my wall next to my tusked mouse and flying mole -- they would abolish abortion in a New York minute if they ever attained power to do so.
Anyone espousing terminating a pregnancy would be hounded.
Anyone performing an abortion would be jailed.
And, without question, the current extremism directed against prominent abortion providers -- ranging from anthrax threats to
assassinations -- would gain implicit acceptance among that broad body of anti-choice rank-and-filers who are rigidly and irredeemably convinced that abortion is "evil" and just another form of "murder".
Opinions carried to force and violence to get others to conform with them...are as wrong as anything can possibly be.
That's why individual choice on this profoundly personal question
is the only truly moral position there is, because it alone is respectful of others' needs and wishes.
It all boils down to:
If you think abortion is awful, don't get one.
But permit those who feel differently to act in accordance with their beliefs and requirements.
One side wants to tyrannize; the other side respects female liberty
to have -- or not have -- an abortion.
Dennis,
I certainly don't consider myself an extremists or anti abortion zealot. I condemn the extremist tactics used by the extremist element. I am not an absolutist, in cases of rape, incest or a mothers life being endangered I think it should be permissable.
Yes I will work legally and ethically within our system of laws to end a horrid practice and change that law.
Slavery was once a legal and accepted practice as well. I think that one day generations will perhaps look back at us and wonder who we could have been so wrong as to allow human babies to be killed inside of the mother. Because they simply didn't want them and saw them as a tissue mass.
You claim
If you think murder is awful, don't murder someone.
I would if it wasn't harming another person.
Dennis,
I have heard you say before that in effect you would never push your morals or views on others. I am curious.
How do you feel about gun control ? How do you feel about drugs being legal ? How do you feel about urban sprawl ? How do you feel about welfare ?
"Because they simply didn't want them and saw them as a tissue mass. "
Really think it is that simple?
Rick,
Because they simply didn't want them and saw them as a tissue mass. "
No actually it's simpler, they just don't want them for some reason. So they kill it. The reasons for not wanting it might be numerous but they don't want them or they wouldn't be killing them would they ?
I can't debate this issue with people who choose to load the language. You obviously take the same approach as Paula, with little movement and little beyond emotional hyperbole.
Can't do it. This issue cries out for reasonable debate, but there's not give in either side.
Rick,
I agree that this issue needs reasonable debate. So why you choose to turn away from it or lump me in with an extremist view is beyond me. I am not going to argue semantics. But my last post simply said this.
No actually it's simpler, they just don't want them for some reason. So they kill it. The reasons for not wanting it might be numerous but they don't want them or they wouldn't be killing them would they ?
O.K what was innacurate with that post ?
Does someone having an abortion actually want the child ? Are there numerous reasons for them not to want a child ? Yes I would think so, but do you feel different ? What could you construe as loading the language with emotional hyperbole in that post ? I am sure I and others get emotional but it's an emotional issue. We are talking about ending a human life. I am willing to listen and debate and feel it's needed. As I have said before that I feel the extremists on both sides do more harm than good.
You asked if I thought it was that simple. I answered yes If you don't want or like the answer to a question then don't ask. If it's the terminology you have a problem with fine, say so specifically. adress it And I will tell you which terms I don't like and we can go from there.
There you go again with your inflammatory statements. You seem to be the unmoveable one.
Rick 6/3/02 3:48pm
You really need to read back thru all of the threads to see that I do have movement and understanding.
I would be the first to comfort someone who confided to me that they had an abortion. I am compassionate to those who have made the decision, many of whom live with regrets their entire lives.
Luv2Fly 6/3/02 2:49pm
I am of similiar feelings, being if the mother would definitely lose her life than do the best to save both, but moreso the mother.
Yes! You go! You said that so well!
Abortion is no more "murder" than George Bush is an intellectual and a statesman.
It's a vital women's rights and healthcare issue.
NO limits or obstacles must be placed before our sisters' open option to control their own reproductive destinies.
NO waiting periods, NO parental notification.
NO denial based on inability to pay.
It's a question of who decides -- Jessie, the hypothetical yet representative young woman who finds herself with an unacceptable pregnancy, or the Jesse Helms of this country, who slander such females, smugly pontificating from positions of imagined moral superiority that abortion seekers are little more than sluts and killers.
My stance in defense of our nation's majority to NOT be ruled by rightwing fanaticism has been labeled "bullshit".
The absolutely correct view that my young nieces ought to be the ones to freely determine when and if they should ever need abortions was termed "crap".
All this under a fraudulent and medically/scientifically/legally invalid contention that even the first union of sperm and egg is a "person" that ought to have "rights" which would supercede those of the female in which it resides.
Equal rights for all living things?!
Where were your tears for the men, women, children and fetuses of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a half a century ago? Or Vietnam? Where are they now for the civilian dead in Afghanistan? Will conservatives care one iota about the babies who'll die if Bush gets his way and America launches an air and land invasion to effect a "regime change" in Iraq? Reactionaries sure haven't cared about the Iraqi kids who've died as a result of our embargo.
And what about all the shuntings of funding for programs to help needy American children, in a variety of urgent ways, that have gone to corporate welfare or Pentagon spending instead...because conservatives never met a federal outlay they could support, unless it made the rich richer and the powerful more powerful?
With charity's food shelves growing bare, with healthcare unaffordable for millions, with welfare "reform" having caused many thousands to slip through the cracks and simply disappear from
social tracking...aren't countless kids being cruelly victimized by the awesome social irresponsibility of those who fixate solely on
embryos in the abortion debate, but callously deny the already living, impoverished and desperate, requisite federal help?
Including assistance to incredibly hard-pressed women, some of whom are mothers already, who simply CANNOT find a tenable possibility for
feeding another mouth.
Adoption? Do you think females in trouble don't ponder it? But there are often lengthy waiting periods, and possibilities for rejection. Meanwhile, the fear and desperation grows.
Against this backdrop, our chauvanistic culture continues to treat women mainly as sex objects, instilling in teenage males and young
adults a pervasive assumption that "girls" exist just for their carnal pleasure. Date rape is unquestionably a major component in
the abortion equation.
All the logic, reason, and true morality is on the pro-choice side.
The anti-choice argument invariably comes down to that incredibly
degrading combination of presumptive assertions: women who get pregnant are easy and sleazy, and consequently morally unfit to abort an "innocent" "baby" or "child".
Hands down, the pro-choice stance wins, as it definitely should, to rational minds in a free society.
Thanks for not answering my questions Dennis, nice to debate with you. If you care to actually debate drop me a line.
I'm not here to debate.
I'm here to use my homemade catapult to hurl aluminum-foil covered
summer sausages -- with Christmas lights -- across the sky above the Wal-Mart parking lot.
Just to watch people's mouth's drop and say: "What the Hell was that?!"
And to see if F-16's are scrambled.